Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Health Nut]

Hi,

Just wondering what the easiest way is to transfer my APE music collection to my iPOD classic 160 GB.  I want to keep the quality on the iPOd at lossless, after all it is 160 GB iPOD.  Am I correct that I need to convert my APE to Apple Lossless?  What is the easiest way to do this?

Thanks,

Chris

[Health Nut]

Do I need to convert my APE library to WMA lossless and then again to Apple Lossless?

[darichman]

Sorry, not sure
Would like to go in the other direction though!

[Doof]

Do I need to convert my APE library to WMA lossless and then again to Apple Lossless?

That's what I did. Somewhere there's some sort of commandline encoder for AAC (IIRC it uses iTunes somehow), but I didn't have much luck with it. IIRC, tag information didn't carry over too well. The best way I found was to convert it all to lossless WMA, and then import that into iTunes. iTunes will then automatically convert it to AAC, so if you set iTunes to use Lossless AAC, that's what you'll end up with. It's kind of a convoluted method, but it works.

Unless somebody else knows of an easier way?

[Alex B]

What is the reason to use lossless ALAC instead of e.g. MP3 @ 320 kbps?

IMHO, it can't be perceivable audio quality unless iPod's MP3 decoder is causing additional quality problems that do not exist on PC playback (and do not exist when ALAC is decoded on an iPod). iPods' electronic audio components at the output stage are certainly not anything like high end hi-fi.

In many blind listening tests high bitrate LAME encoded VBR MP3 has been found to be transparent or almost transparent. Encoding at CBR 320 adds additional quality headroom and usually takes care of the known problematic samples. Personally, I am aware of only a few sample clips that can be detected when 320 kbps MP3 files are directly compared with the lossless source in a blind ABX test using dedicated ABX test software and high quality headphones. Even with these samples a lot of ABX test training is needed to be able to hear the difference. (If you don't believe me, I can provide a set of test samples and testing instructions.)

[mhakman]

Do I need to convert my APE library to WMA lossless and then again to Apple Lossless?

No, you don’t need. I use dBpoweramp Music Converter to convert directly from FLAC to ALAC. It even manages to copy/convert in FLAC embedded cover art image over to ALAC. It should work for APE too. You need to carefully follow the installation instructions for ALAC converter for dBpoweramp.

[mhakman]

What is the reason to use lossless ALAC instead of e.g. MP3 @ 320 kbps?

MP3 @ 320 kbps sounds fantastic, @ 384 kbps even better, but it doesn’t sound the same as lossless. Using high quality equipment I can clearly hear that MP3 gives dryer sound, some details disappear; acoustic guitar is colder and its decay is shorter; cymbals and other percussion instruments are dryer, shorter, and loose some of their variation among drummers and drum kits; saxophones don’t sound quite as furious Lions as they should.

In ABX tests I often cannot tell whether A or B is MP3, simply because a recording could have been made in such way that the original sound sounds like MP3. Sometimes I can tell which one is which. In most cases I can tell that A is different from B. On the other hand, audio quality of many of today’s commercial recordings is much lower than MP3 @ 320 kbps would allow reproducing. Because so many people listen to MP3 encoded music at much lower rates and quality, the artists, musicians, producers, and studio engineers don’t have the incentives to do any better.

I don’t know whether you can hear these small differences on iPods or other portable MP3 players, in particular when using standard earbuds supplied with the device.  I know that these devices sound much worse than high quality stationary equipment, even when using high quality headphones, or in particular when using them.  However, really good music is enjoyable even via AM car radio.

My master library is mostly in FLAC, some tracks are in 320 or 384 kbps MP3 because it isn’t possible to purchase lossless for these recordings anymore. Even in those cases I store decompressed audio in FLAC format. This master is maintained and played using MC. Then I maintain an ALAC copy for iTunes, and then a 320 kbps MP3 copy for iPods etc.

[Health Nut]

Thank-you MHAKMAN!

ALEX B...  I did not post this thread to start a religious war.  I am a scientist, objectivist, etc...  I'm not trying to be rude, but I did not start this thread for opinions on Lossless vs MP3 at 320 CBR.  I asked a very specific question about converting from one lossless format to another. 

Thank-you,

Chris

P.S.  It sure would be helpful if we could have ALAC conversion integrated into Media Center.  I have been waiting for this for years, I just don't get it why dB Poweramp offers this, and Media Center does not....  this continues to be a royal pain since I am using iPOD 160 GB for various high quality applications. 

[Stimpco]

I would also love to see a Apple Lossless plugin.

[Alex B]

I have no need to fight against any format. I just said what I said because JRiver provides a well funtioning MP3 conversion system for portables and because it is a common misbelief that MP3 files can't provide excellent audio quality for playback purposes. Personally I rip and encode my CDs in a lossless format, but I have no hesitation to use a high quality lossy format on a portable.

ALAC is unlikely to be internally supported in MC. Apple has not published the ALAC format and Illustrate (the company behind dBpowerAMP) uses a reverse engineered proprietary codec that is not public either. (Edit: Though the guy who runs the company said over two and half years ago that within one year or so it would be released as open source. Unfortunately that has not happened.)

It is also possible to use iTunesEncode as an external commandline encoder with MC. iTunesEncode is a front-end program that uses iTunes for the conversion process. However, probably dBpowerAMP would be a better option because it can include the file tags. MC's External Encoder cannot add tag data in the command line. Though strictly for MC & iPod the file tags are unnecessary because iPod reads only its database.

[Alex B]

@ 384 kbps even better, but...

Since this is Health Nut's ALAC & iPod thread I am not going discuss about lossy vs. lossless encoding any more, but I would like to know what do you use for playing 384 kbps MP3? You can't play freeformat MP3 files with MC.

[JimH]

In my opinion, Alex B is right (as usual).

[Alex B]

In my opinion, Alex B is right (as usual).

Of course I am right  ( ), but so is Health Nut too. He has right to prefer a lossless format. Unfortunately Apple didn't choose an open and existing format like FLAC. (It has been said that ALAC is internally quite similar with FLAC. Most likely the Apple developers carefully studied the FLAC format when they created ALAC.)


Health Nut,

Before going through all the hassle of converting a complete library with dBpoweramp I would recommend searching the dBpoweramp forum for potential iPod playback problems and testing a bunch of files. They have had a few problems, but possibly those are fixed by now. I found several related threads by searching for ALAC.

[JimH]

Health Nut may have his own reason to use lossless on an iPod, but it seems like overkill to me.  That was all I meant.

[m1abrams]

This is not to say MC should avoid doing a conversion to ALAC.  However I have tested ALAC on my iPod and the biggest point against using any lossless format on a portable player is the reduction of battery time.  It cuts the battery time down in my test from ~10 hours to about ~3 hours.  This is due to the fact that for every minute of lossless music the drive spins about 5 times more than it would for every minute of MP3 music.

[mhakman]

Since this is Health Nut's ALAC & iPod thread I am not going discuss about lossy vs. lossless encoding any more, but I would like to know what do you use for playing 384 kbps MP3? You can't play freeformat MP3 files with MC.

I hope Health Nut doesn’t mind if I borrow this thread when answering your question Alex. Yes, I’ve noticed that MC cannot play MP3 freeformat but it doesn’t bother me much. The first thing I do when I obtain such a file is to decompress it to WAV using Lame. Then I place it in correct Artist/Album folder using Track name as filename within MC maintained directory tree. Then I import it to MC and let MC assign field values from folder/file names. Then I let MC convert it to FLAC, manually enter Track#, Year and Genre etc. Then I let MC rename/move file(s) using field values. At last I add cover image.

Both FLAC and converted to ALAC versions contain the same quality as the original 384 kbps MP3 because no recompression is done. When converting to 320 kbps MP3 (for iPods etc) I loose some quality and this is the reason for starting with 384 kbps – I have 64 kbps to loose, so to speak.

Exactly as you Alex, I try to store my music in lossless format in my main MC library as long as it is possible. Some tracks aren’t possible to purchase or obtain in lossless, and then I have to resort to destructive formats. One such example is live recording of laughing Elvis Presley in Are You Lonesome Tonight from his concert in Las Vegas 1969. The uniqueness and fun of this recording, and especially his words at the end, compensate more than well the poor audio quality of the recording itself.

When copying the music to portable players I don’t hesitate to use 320 kbps MP3, especially nowadays when all players used in my family are diskless meaning limited memory space. Also, IMHO, a high quality recording (quality of studio equipment, mixing art, and mastering process) sounds much better in 320 MP3 than poor quality recording in lossless.

[Health Nut]

Not to mention that only LOSSLESS can be used for archival quality providing perfect copies for one's own use and safe back-up.  I'm not going to the EFFORT of ripping endless amounts of CD's unless I'm going to be able to make perfect generational copies as I need them in the future.  I make several backup copies of my music collection in Lossless in case one or more hard drives crash.  I use lossless for most of my high end-audio applications as well.  I do use 320 CBR MP3 only for iPODS I use for gym/running. 

Space is not an issue anymore either.  We already have 160 GB iPODs also...

I and others prefer lossless compression for many uses.  I would hope that the owners of this company would also respect the usefulness and fidelity of lossless compresion.  It is disheartening to hear some of these comments and lack of respect for lossless.


I wasn't aware of any problems with dB power AMP conversion from APE to ALAC....  I'll do a google search.  It will be great when Media Center has the ALAC PLUG-in....   It would be of tremendous help when that comes to fruition.

[BartMan01]

It is disheartening to hear some of these comments and lack of respect for lossless.

I think you are mis-interpreting the comments.  I would bet that MOST users of MC have their personal libraries digitized in a lossless format (APE or FLAC).  The comments are directed at the use of MP3 vs lossless for an iPod.  For *MOST* applications, lossless is overkill on an iPod and only results in reduced drive space and battery life.  If you are dead set on getting lossless to an iPod via MC, why not go with a third party firmware for your iPod like RockBox. 

[Doof]

I would hope that the owners of this company would also respect the usefulness and fidelity of lossless compresion.  It is disheartening to hear some of these comments and lack of respect for lossless.

You do realize that Matt (one of the head programmers for MC, you know... the guy with the picture of the dog as his avatar?) is the same guy who created APE, right?

I don't think there's any lack of respect for lossless, just people questioning whether it's really necessary on a device that's typically listened to through a cheap pair of headphones or while battling road noise in your car. I have all of my CDs in APE format, but I can't justify lossless on my iPod. To be fair, I do only have a 16GB iTouch, so space is limited, and if I had a 160GB iPod, I might be tempted to go with lossless if for no other reason than to cut down on sync time. But I also don't really understand the need to have my entire music collection with me at all possible times of my life, lossless or no. I guess I'm just not that in love with music that I need a constant soundtrack to my life. Sometimes I wonder why I spend so much time here. Seems like I spend much much much more time organizing my music, photos, and videos then I spending listening to/watching them.

[leezer3]

You do realize that Matt (one of the head programmers for MC, you know... the guy with the picture of the dog as his avatar?) is the same guy who created APE, right?

I don't think there's any lack of respect for lossless, just people questioning whether it's really necessary on a device that's typically listened to through a cheap pair of headphones or while battling road noise in your car. I have all of my CDs in APE format, but I can't justify lossless on my iPod. To be fair, I do only have a 16GB iTouch, so space is limited, and if I had a 160GB iPod, I might be tempted to go with lossless if for no other reason than to cut down on sync time. But I also don't really understand the need to have my entire music collection with me at all possible times of my life, lossless or no. I guess I'm just not that in love with music that I need a constant soundtrack to my life. Sometimes I wonder why I spend so much time here. Seems like I spend much much much more time organizing my music, photos, and videos then I spending listening to/watching them.

Bingo 
Unless you spend $00000's on studio quality gear, there is no way on earth you can tell the difference between lossless and a well done lossy encode.
For a portable, lossless is total overkill; To tell the difference you need absolutely no external noise.
Blind testing has shown time and again that unless there is no noise & you have an exceptional ear there is no real difference betweeen lossless and high-spec lossy, other than in your mind.

Low level lossy is a different matter altogether, anything below 320kbps & I agree that differences can be heard on high-end personal stuff

IMHO, the only real place for lossless is archival copies, anything else including general listening, I'd store in lossy, probably 320kps MP3.

Cheers

-Leezer-

[mhakman]

But I also don't really understand the need to have my entire music collection with me at all possible times of my life, lossless or no.

One reason for loading your whole music collection to your mobile is simplicity. You don’t have to choose, select, decide which tracks/records to copy and which to leave behind. And then you don’t have to maintain that synchronisation list – you simply synchronize the whole thing and do something else during the time it takes, like sleeping well or eating a good breakfast.

Sometimes I wonder why I spend so much time here. Seems like I spend much much much more time organizing my music, photos, and videos then I spending listening to/watching them.

Like in other hobbies and deep interests, talking about it, organizing it, finding information about it, or simply messing around with it, is at least as important as doing (listening to) it.  It’s the way we march to a destination, not the destination itself that is important and usually gives us the ultimate and lasting long term pleasure.

[mhakman]

Unless you spend $00000's on studio quality gear, there is no way on earth you can tell the difference between lossless and a well done lossy encode.

The difference is audible already on such modest equipment as a Dell desktop computer with built-in audio interface and a pair of Sennheiser HD485 headphones for $120. Whether you hear it or not may depend on your ears, mind, experience, and the way you are listening to it.

Blind testing has shown time and again that unless there is no noise & you have an exceptional ear there is no real difference betweeen lossless and high-spec lossy, other than in your mind.

This statement has been repeated over and over again without anyone giving any reference to any scientific publication describing the test and the results.

IMHO, the only real place for lossless is archival copies, anything else including general listening, I'd store in lossy, probably 320kps MP3.

If you store it in lossless format for archival purposes, then why not listen to it in this format as well? But I agree that on mobile devices it may be appropriate to use MP3 @ 320 kbps, if not for other, then for memory/disk space and battery time reasons. On the other hand, give me an iTouch with 1 TB storage and appropriate battery time and I’ll simply copy my whole lossless library to it.

[llafriel]

This statement has been repeated over and over again without anyone giving any reference to any scientific publication describing the test and the results.

http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html

Summing Up

In plain language, this means that our musically trained test listeners could reliably distinguish the poorer quality MP3s at 128 kbps quite accurately from either of the other higher-quality samples. But when deciding between 256 kbps encoded MP3s and the original CD, no difference could be determined, on average, for all the pieces. The testers took the 256 kbps samples for the CD just as often as they took the original CD samples themselves.

[leezer3]

Plenty more of them about too, for example-
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=57406
(Discussion on a restricted journal article, summarised in the thread)

Read the Hydogenaudio forums, and you'll find many more, both professionally done blind/ double blind tests & community done tests.
Notice that the vast majority of people who think they can hear a difference know in advance if its lossy or lossless; A massive amount of the percieved difference is purely and simply in the mind.

Also, notice I said well-done. Its perfectly possible to make a cack encode at any bitrate, you need to ensure that your encoder settings are right for the source material.

The difference is audible already on such modest equipment as a Dell desktop computer with built-in audio interface and a pair of Sennheiser HD485 headphones for $120. Whether you hear it or not may depend on your ears, mind, experience, and the way you are listening to it.

Sorry, but you're deluding yourself there. The built in audio interface alone is going to nullify any benifits from the decent headphones, and any difference you can hear is simply the result of cheap vs. expensive headphones/ speakers.
Couple those headphones with a good quality music soundcard & I accept you will hear a difference, but the difference has absolutely nothing to do with whether the encode is lossy or not, its good quality equipment versus cheaper stuff.

-Leezer-

[mhakman]

http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html

Many thanks for the article. I read it with interest. I have few comments.

First of all, on the basis of presented data, the conclusion in “Summing up” is wrong. It says “But when deciding between 256 kbps encoded MP3s and the original CD, no difference could be determined, on average, for all the pieces.” This is false. The only conclusion the actual data support (accepting the score system that they used) is that the listeners, on average, couldn’t tell whether it was 256 kbps MP3 or original CD. You cannot draw the conclusion that the listeners didn’t hear any difference at all. They couldn’t tell which one was which, which is not the same as not hearing differences at all.

This is exactly what I said before. Often I cannot tell which 320 kbps MP3 is and which the original is. But often I can tell that one sounds differently from the other. Then whether you perceive the former or the latter as better is a matter of personal preferences. For me, and by definition, anything that sounds differently from the original is worse. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God! The truth in this context is what artists, musicians, and producers approved in studio to be released.
   
Actually, MP3 may be perceived as more pleasant than the original. MP3 removes some noise and some of harmonic complexity which can make the music to sound clearer and easier both to reproduce and listen to. For me, it is the hearing all the details of all that complexity that makes me happy.

Therefore, the question posed in the article is the wrong one. The right question is “Do you hear a difference between A and B?” You present only 2 alternatives to the listener (MP3 and original), and you don’t tell him whether you play A 2 times, B 2 times, or A and B – you select this randomly and relate listeners answers to this. Given a number of tracks and listeners, you may then statistically answer the question whether 320 kbps is audibly different from original.

But this is not what the article does. It uses 3 alternatives, it messes with very a strange score system, for which the statistics are difficult, and asks the question “do you think this is more pleasant than that and that?” – because this is what you ask when you ask people to identify which one is the original, which one is at 256 kbps, and which one is at 128 kbps. They will say that the most pleasant is the original, next comes 256 kbps, and then 128 kbps.

Then they say “our musically trained test listeners could reliably distinguish the poorer quality MP3s at 128 kbps quite accurately from either of the other higher-quality samples.” Well, IMHO, only deaf have problems with hearing the clear pumping frequency shift and distortion (Doppler Effect reminiscent of Leslie speaker sound), especially on cymbal’s sound at 128 kbps MP3. Some pelope even like it.

In summary, if that article was to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific paper, and I was its referee, then I wouldn’t let it through.

[mhakman]

Sorry, but you're deluding yourself there. The built in audio interface alone is going to nullify any benifits from the decent headphones, and any difference you can hear is simply the result of cheap vs. expensive headphones/ speakers.
Couple those headphones with a good quality music soundcard & I accept you will hear a difference, but the difference has absolutely nothing to do with whether the encode is lossy or not, its good quality equipment versus cheaper stuff.

Did I mention cheap vs. expensive headphones or good quality versus cheaper stuff? Follow up question; is the most expensive always of the best quality?

If you don’t hear the differences then obviously you don’t. I do.

[leezer3]

Do you hear a difference?
Yep, because you want to hear a difference! The trouble is that you KNOW that you have two different files, and you accept that you can't always tell which is which. If you were supplied with two identical files & believed they were different, you would hear differences; Thats the way the human mind works

llafriel's linked article itself accepts that it

does not support watertight conclusions, but they do provide interesting insights

The point there is that they're using people who work professionally with audio, and they have trouble discerning one from another. As I've said, many of these differences are simply a product of the human mind playing tricks upon itself, hence why they couldn't reliably distinguish one from the other at the higher bitrates.

Obviously you didn’t read what I wrote. Where did I mention cheap vs. expensive headphones or good quality versus cheaper stuff? Follow up question; is the most expensive always of the best quality?

If you don’t hear the differences then obviously you don’t. I do.

You mentioned the differences being audible on a ordinary desktop with decent headphones- I dispute that conclusion, & am saying that the differences you percieve with this setup have nothing to do with the bitrate and compression of the file, but rather with the relative quality of what you've experienced before, versus the quality of what you have now, and the fact that you're well aware that you have two different files, one of which you subconciously percieve as 'better'.

Again I said that by adding a pro grade soundcard, you will be able to hear 'more' differences over the onboard- Again, these are not the compression, but rather the product of the better grade equipment
Best way I can think of to put this, is in the conversion process from analog to digital. The music on your HDD is digital, and to be outputted to your headphones, it must become analog. Digital is not subject to quality loss except under exceptional circumstances such as corruption, but analog can have digital noise introdced from other components etc.
On the other hand, professional grade audio products use various pots (Not too technical on this, but you know what I'm driving at) and so on to smooth the signal. Cheaper stuff such as onboard sound simply doesn't have this, and there is a noticable difference between the two.

The most expensive obviously isn't always of the best quality (See Bose for example, horribly expensive and crummy sound compared to other pro grade stuff)
It follows though that there is a relational curve (?I think this is the right term?), wherepon the component you spend $100 on is better than the one you spend $10 on. There will be exceptions to this rule, but generally this will hold true.


-Leezer-

[mhakman]

@leezer3

Let me repeat how a proper test is performed. I wrote this above.

Therefore, the question posed in the article is the wrong one. The right question is “Do you hear a difference between A and B?” You present only 2 alternatives to the listener (MP3 and original), and you don’t tell him whether you play A 2 times, B 2 times, or A and B – you select this randomly and relate listeners answers to this. Given a number of tracks and listeners, you may then statistically answer the question whether 320 kbps is audibly different from original.

Using exactly the same equipment all the time, of course!

If you under these circumstances hear the differences when A followed by B is played, and also when B is followed by A, but you don’t when A is followed by A, neither when B is followed by B, and you don’t know which of the 4 pairs you were listening to, then there is audible difference between A and B, whichever of the 2 is MP3 and whichever is the original.

This is the test that should be performed by the referred journal. I say I hear, you say you don’t. I can say it is audible because I hear it. You cannot say it is not audible; you can only say you can’t hear it. Audible means that someone can hear it. Not audible means nobody can hear it.

However, if the differences aren’t too big, and you don’t want to hear them, then you certainly won’t.

[JimH]

Thread locked.  (Consider this a mercy killing.)