Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the '10.4: Use Automator to mass-convert iTunes tracks' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
10.4: Use Automator to mass-convert iTunes tracks
Authored by: Rev. Al on Jun 30, '05 10:50:24AM

You will definitely lose significant quality by converting from one lossy format (MP3) to another (AAC). I would not recommend this tip to anyone who listens to music.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.4: Use Automator to mass-convert iTunes tracks
Authored by: drummer_ant on Jun 30, '05 11:11:32AM

Could you explain to me exactly what you mean by

"You will definitely lose significant quality by converting from one lossy format (MP3) to another (AAC)"

Surely if you were to convert an Mp3 encoded at 192Kbps, to AAC, with the same bit rate, it would sound exactly the same?



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.4: Use Automator to mass-convert iTunes tracks
Authored by: billabOng on Jun 30, '05 11:16:06AM

That is not the case, as any compression is 'lossy'. Saving a jpg as a jpg will give you a similar reduction in quality.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.4: Use Automator to mass-convert iTunes tracks
Authored by: Baggins on Jun 30, '05 11:55:14AM

You won't lose significant quality. That's just audiophile snobbishness. You will lose some quality because AAC and MP3 discard different kinds of information to get their compression. For most people and most audio equipment, this loss is below the threshold of human detection.

I have converted 128 AAC files to 192 MP3 files and played the two side by side over pretty good quality speakers, switching back and forth between each format at the same loop during playback. There was no discernable loss of audio quality. However, a 128 to 128 conversion did have a noticeable audio loss. The MP3 files sounded "muddier."

You're probably safe making one or possibly two transcodings. After that I would submit that you will begin to hear a noticeable degradation in audio.

But as for all these people who talk about significant quality loss, ignore them.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.4: Use Automator to mass-convert iTunes tracks
Authored by: pascalpp on Jun 30, '05 01:22:53PM

but it's the principle of the thing! why go through all this trouble to save a measly 5gb of disk space and potentially lower the quality of your audio files? disk space is cheap!



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.4: Use Automator to mass-convert iTunes tracks
Authored by: maddys_daddy on Jun 30, '05 03:03:22PM

Because this might allow them to fit more of their music onto their iPod. Or, perhaps they can't afford a new 2.5" drive for their powerbook or iBook. Laptop drives aren't nearly as cheap as desktop drives, and we're not all loaded with expendable income to go throwing at new drives.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.4: Use Automator to mass-convert iTunes tracks
Authored by: macslut on Jul 01, '05 02:40:59AM

Baggins,

In your example you aren't doing what the author of the hint said he was doing. He was going from MP3 to AAC "mostly just to free up space" as others have suggested as the reason for the transcoding.

Transcoding from lossy to lossy always results in quality loss.

The significance of the quality loss depends on (not in any order):
1) complexity of the audio
2) source and output bit rates
3) quality of playback system
4) listening ability
5) listening knowledge

The point here is that if one is going from MP3 to AAC to reduce the size of their library they are probably doing something like going from 192kbps MP3 to 128kbps AAC, not the other way around.

Now ideally what one would do is re-rip from the source CDs where possible, but people should really understand what their results will be before permanently reducing what may be their only copies of files. Look at the post by drummer_ant. This is clearly a case of someone not understanding what takes place with transcoding (I'm not saying this is easy and don't mean to pick on anyone).

Quality only goes one way -> loss. You can't get it back, and I've seen too many cases of people thinking 128kbps was somehow CD quality, thinking it sounded ok and then once they were committed to the format realizing that their entire library sucked ass on their stereo system.

BTW: I transcode all the time. I have a 400GB library of 192kbps AAC files from my CDs. I often need to convert to MP3 for playing on various devices, and even will transcode to a lower bit rate sometimes, but this is with the acknowledgment of the quality loss and keeping the source files.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.4: Use Automator to mass-convert iTunes tracks
Authored by: Baggins on Jul 01, '05 10:12:34AM

Bit rate is a lot like the MHz myth: lower bit rate does not automatically correspond to lower audio quality. It all depends on the compression algorithms.

If the guy is worried, all he has to do is convert a subtle classical piece to 128 AAC and do some audio testing by playing both tracks alternatively in short clips. If he can't tell a difference, then any loss that may have occurred is irrelevant.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.4: Use Automator to mass-convert iTunes tracks
Authored by: macslut on Jul 01, '05 12:09:43PM

"...lower bit rate does not automatically correspond to lower audio quality. It all depends on the compression algorithms."

Correct, but the point I was making was that in your example you said you went from 128 AAC -> 192 MP3 and said you had no "discernible" loss, but did have a noticeable loss going from 128 AAC -> 128 MP3.

Your test makes no statement of what would happen to the audio quality based on what the author of the hint said he intends to do, that is go from a higher bit rate MP3 to a lower bit rate AAC.

Most everyone agrees that AAC sounds better at a lower bit rate, thus one could easily get improved quality *and* save space by re-encoding *from the source* using AAC instead of MP3. BUT... Going from MP3 to AAC inherently reduces the quality such that what may be considered an acceptable bit rate may result in a file size that is not significantly smaller.

"If the guy is worried, all he has to do is convert a subtle classical piece to 128 AAC and do some audio testing by playing both tracks alternatively in short clips. If he can't tell a difference, then any loss that may have occurred is irrelevant"

Except for when his music collection contains mostly music that is *not* subtle classical and perhaps very complex audio that doesn't compress well, or when he decides to play the music on a better/worse system, or when he learns what compression artifacts are and starts hearing them where he didn't notice them before, etc...

I would do a lot more than just checking one track on one system, and without knowing what to listen for, or knowing that you have the ability to detect the difference. This is why there is so much crap floating around out there...because people who don't know any better will make foolish claims based on flawed sampling and say things like 128kbps MP3/AAC/WMA is "CD Quality"...those people should be shot.

I'm not saying that the quality loss will always result in making the space savings or effort not worth it. I'm only pointing out that there *will be* quality loss and someone should definitely make an informed decision about this, especially if they could re-encode from the original source.

My comments are in response to comments by you and others:
"You won't lose significant quality"
"That's just audiophile snobbishness"
"as for all these people who talk about significant quality loss, ignore them"
"What a load of bull"
"99% of the population would never notice the difference"

And the most incorrect:
"Surely if you were to convert an Mp3 encoded at 192Kbps, to AAC, with the same bit rate, it would sound exactly the same?"



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.4: Use Automator to mass-convert iTunes tracks
Authored by: thoughton on Jun 30, '05 03:15:33PM

> "I would not recommend this tip to anyone who listens to music."

What a load of bull.

While there is technically some sound degradation when decoding mp3 and reencoding as aac, 99% of the population would never notice the difference.

Try it yourself before making foolish grandiose statements.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.4: Use Automator to mass-convert iTunes tracks
Authored by: kirkmc on Jul 01, '05 04:33:28AM

That's just not true. Try it yourself. You will have noticable artifacts on some songs.

---
Read my blog: Kirkville -- http://www.mcelhearn.com
Musings, Opinion and Miscellanea, on Macs, iPods and more



[ Reply to This | # ]