Help Needed: Downsizing My iTunes-Library

[Peter 0]

Hello all,

I don't know if this is my first post/thread and it is actually quite curious to be a frequent reader of this site and my first post is not regarding John Williams but I really need your help and advice.

I have finally exceeded the space of my ipod classic. And I need to know what would be the best way to get free space while having the best possible aural experience and still the same content since I can't yet decide which album I should delete.

I use iTunes for ripping my CDs and I store them as MP3 320 kBit/s.

So, my question is, will it have any influence on the sound quality when I reduce the kbit/s to 256 or 224? With which kBit/s will the reduced sound quality begin?

And what does VBR mean? Would it be sufficient if I change my 320 kBit/s to 320 kBit/s VBR? Although it seems that I can't convert 320 kBit/s to 320 kBit/s VBR in iTunes. Or does somebody know how I can do it?

Well, I am really curious about your suggestions and learning to know how you store your music for listening purposes. And I hope that I did not choose the wrong possibility to store my music so that I don't need to redo everything again.

I'm looking forward hearing your suggestions.

Peter

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

First of all, forget MP3. Its ancient format. If you are gonna go lossy, AAC is far better.

Also, if you are listening with a headphone you really dont need 320. I have all the music on my iPod in 192 and it sounds great.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

VBR = Variable Bitrate, as opposed to CBR = Constant Bitrate.

For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_bitrateand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_bitrate

Advantages and disadvantages of VBR

The advantages of VBR are that it produces a better quality-to-space ratio compared to a CBR file of the same data. The bits available are used more flexibly to encode the sound or video data more accurately, with fewer bits used in less demanding passages and more bits used in difficult-to-encode passages.

The disadvantages are that it may take more time to encode, as the process is more complex, and that some hardware might not be compatible with VBR files. VBR may also pose problems during streaming when the instantaneous bitrate exceeds the data rate of the communications path. These problems can be avoided by limiting the instantaneous bitrate during encoding or (at the cost of increased latency) by enlarging the playout buffer.

Also, encryption of VBR-encoded speech (or other signals including video) gives only limited privacy, as the patterns of variation of the bit rate may reveal what language is being spoken;

In the past, many hardware and software players could not decode variable bitrate files properly, partly because the various VBR encoders used were not well developed. This resulted in common use of CBR over VBR for the sake of compatibility. As of December 2006, devices that support only CBR encoded files are largely obsolete, as the vast majority of modern portable music devices and software support VBR encoded files

Support for VBR in AAC and MP3 files is found in most modern digital audio players, including those released by Apple, Microsoft, Creative Technology, and SanDisk. Early VBR algorithms occasionally introduced audible artifacts when encoding monotone or minimal tones (for example audiobooks and acoustic music). These artifacts often mimicked a "digital chirp" during the quiet portions of the song or when there was only speaking. As VBR encoding algorithms have improved, these problems have been resolved in subsequent generations of the VBR standard.

[Jay 37,532]

VBR = Variable Bit Rate, meaning it examines little chunks of music at a time at determines which compression rate to apply to that chunk (IE, 128kbps for silence or a simple pulse, 320kbps for all instruments blaring). Since mp3s can be 64-320kbps, there's no such thing as VBR 320kbps, because then it wouldn't be varying - in other words, with a VBR MP3, the kbps listed after it is the AVERAGE bitrate across the whole file. So a 224kbps VBR file AVERAGES 224 across its whole length.

To answer your original question, Apple actually implemented a very simply, one click solution to do exactly for you what you need. I forget the exact wording, but it's something like "make 256kbps version for portable storage" or something - basically, it keeps your original untouched 320kbps mp3s on your hard drive, but will store 256kbps AACs on your actual device. That will free up space.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

192 is the option, not 256.

[King Mark 3,631]

I wouldn't delete anything, just remove stuff you don't listen to often from the ipod and keep expanding the library on your PC

downgrading MP3's is always something you regret later

[RedBard 71]

192, 48000, 32, and float.

My three favorite numbers and most favorite word when producing digital audio.

Of course, it also depends on what the wavelength of certain segments are, so it's not just a template I constantly go by.

[King Mark 3,631]

I find 192 psychologically too low bitrate

[Jay 37,532]

I wouldn't delete anything, just remove stuff you don't listen to often from the ipod and keep expanding the library on your PC

downgrading MP3's is always something you regret later

Yea but in my method he'd be leaving his originals on his hard drive alone and just changing the copies on his ipod

[King Mark 3,631]

well that's ok then

[Jilal 569]

I find 192 psychologically too low bitrate

I can relate to that . It's something you need to overcome.

My MP3 files are encoded in VBR V2, and I've never thought of encoding them in a better way, though I might convert to AAC if the compression algorithm is that better.

[Bespin 8,508]

I listen a lot of classical and instrumental music in headphones, all my mp3 collection is converted in iTunes at 256 VBR "medium".

I could not go lower than that.

[Wojo 2,453]

192 is the option, not 256.

I could live with that on an iPod because I usually listen to my iPod at work or in the car. At work, I usually keep one earbud out of my ear, so I can pay attention to the busy cubicle farm, and in car, there are road noises.

[King Mark 3,631]

I listen to these files on ipod and at home.

I can't tell the difference in bit rates above 192k even on my super expensive headphones .But still, I'll always pick 320k MP3 is possible (just in case It's my fault for not making the difference between that and a lower bitrate)

I also cannot tell the diff between 320k and lossless

(And I don't have some form of hearing loss either)

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

There is an undeniable difference between 192 and 320, to say nothing of higher qualities, for me. I can hear details that I wouldn't otherwise. Simple as that.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Why are you a woman now?

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

What an offensive question.

[King Mark 3,631]

There is an undeniable difference between 192 and 320, to say nothing of higher qualities, for me. I can hear details that I wouldn't otherwise. Simple as that.

of course you do...

[Wojo 2,453]

Why are you a woman now?

Are you implying women have better hearing than men? Because I know some that are pretty shitty listeners.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

There is an undeniable difference between 192 and 320, to say nothing of higher qualities, for me. I can hear details that I wouldn't otherwise. Simple as that.

of course you do...

Glad you agree.

[Bespin 8,508]

• Gender:Female

[RedBard 71]

So what's the forum's policy on gender comparison and potentially sexist remarks?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Sexism is not allowed!

[RedBard 71]

An unambiguous response.

I like it. ^_^

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Perhaps Alexander, having reintroduced himself so recently, would care to elaborate more on how he agrees with KM that anyone who feels there is a perceptible improvement in detail based on bitrate must be mistaken, instead of just "liking" his comment. Please, don't leave us in the dark.

[RedBard 71]

Personally, unless I have an expensive pair of state-of-the-art headphones, I can't tell the difference between 192 and 320, and I have incredible hearing capabilities.

It's hard to compare (let alone appreciate) the difference in bitrate if you don't have the means to conduct the comparison.

[publicist 4,643]

You can tell if it's a shitty codec...the early days of Napster held some especially grim surprises. Nowadays iTunes and Amazon mp3 somtimes sound really weird though i always think it must be my equipment.

[Jilal 569]

Perhaps Alexander, having reintroduced himself so recently, would care to elaborate more on how he agrees with KM that anyone who feels there is a perceptible improvement in detail based on bitrate must be mistaken, instead of just "liking" his comment. Please, don't leave us in the dark.

I merely found his biased comment humorous enough to press the like button, be it sarcasm or not (though in KM's case, I suppose it's not meant to be sarcastic).

Then again, I like to believe I have near-perfect hearing abilities, and I don't perceive any compression in my VBR V2-encoded MP3 files.

[RedBard 71]

You can tell if it's a shitty codec...the early days of Napster held some especially grim surprises. Nowadays iTunes and Amazon mp3 somtimes sound really weird though i always think it must be my equipment.

This is why it's always important to have the latest codec available.

[Andy 4,275]

If iPod space is the problem, why not just sync only the stuff you want to listen to each day? I make a playlist for each cd I rip, and then check only the playlists I'm likely to listen to any given week. If you're not concerned with filling up your hard drive, wouldn't that work for you?

[King Mark 3,631]

I ripped most of my own cd's in VBR-Preset Standard which is more or less VBR 192. Could have went a bit higher but I haven't re-ripped them.The newer ones I rip in 320 now

You can tell if it's a shitty codec...the early days of Napster held some especially grim surprises.

I think degradation can also happen with trans coding to another format , and this happens a lot with shared material (maybe several times in the files history)

Some people have the idea a 128k MP3 would sound better if transcoded to 320, and then maybe someone else will put it back to 128k to save space

128k MP3 is terrible no matter the codec. I can't believe internet radio stations still have that bit rate. We keep getting shit sounding ripped broadcasts of Williams concerts

[RedBard 71]

128k MP3 is terrible no matter the codec. I can't believe internet radio stations still have that bit rate. We keep getting shit sounding ripped broadcasts of Williams concerts

This is why I like sticking with 192k when encoding audio, because without the proper headphones (which the vast majority of people can't afford), I wouldn't be able to appreciate the grade of the FLAC (or similar lossless format) above that level, especially at 320k.

[Jay 37,532]

Has the original poster even been back to this thread to read the advice?

[RedBard 71]

There's no way of knowing, really.

[Wojo 2,453]

The US government knows.

[RedBard 71]

Ssh!

They might be reading this right now..

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

If you're not operating behind several levels of "protection," then you deserve all the snooping you get!

[RedBard 71]

Not true. Some people are open to being the subject of voyeurism and don't care who snoops on them.

I'm not one of those people.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

320 AAC for me. There will never be a portable device that can hold my entire music collection so I don't bother downgrading for my iPhone. I just keep a few non-score playlists on it for rare situations. I only listen to music in my car or on my computer.

[King Mark 3,631]

128k MP3 is terrible no matter the codec. I can't believe internet radio stations still have that bit rate. We keep getting shit sounding ripped broadcasts of Williams concerts

This is why I like sticking with 192k when encoding audio, because without the proper headphones (which the vast majority of people can't afford), I wouldn't be able to appreciate the grade of the FLAC (or similar lossless format) above that level, especially at 320k.

I can't, even with a good DAC (FIIO E17) and Grado GS1000i. The problem is that even lower bit rate MP3's are improved (they play at their "optimal sound")

, contrary to the belief they would reveal more defects and sound even shittier. In the case of 128 k you still hear the metallic compression sound of course, but the dynamic range and sound balance is still improved compared to cheap headphones, and all the instruments have the correct timbre.

I can hear a much greater degradation in sound quality with cheaper headphones than changing the bit rate of the music , that is 100% clear to me. l also have a habbit of trying new headphones whenever I see demos in stores

So if your making all these claims about Flac vs 320k on your white ipod buds...I dunno

[Bespin 8,508]

I always travels with "almost" all my discography!

I never remove something, I simply buy a new card.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

How do you know which card contains what?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I've never understood the need to listen to music "on the go". I tried it years ago and I just couldn't get any enjoyment from it. Too many interruptions and distractions.

I have to be sitting on my lounge with the big stereo hi-fi activated in order to enjoy music.

[Bespin 8,508]

How do you know which card contains what?

When they are stowed, I know :-)

In the top, the five cards that contains Pop : English, French and Québécois.

The ones on the side, classical & soundtracks.

The two on the bottom, Charles Aznavour rarities.

The JW one is in the player (just 16 Gb is not sufficient for JW, will have to buy another)

[King Mark 3,631]

do these memory cards ever get corrupted or fail?

[publicist 4,643]

Possible. Like any medium.

[Wojo 2,453]

They absolutely fail. I've lost many photos. They do sell memory recovery software that often get most back.

[Trent B 337]

I wouldn't really change anything except take KM's approach and keep only what you listen to the most and dump everything else off the iPod.

[Bespin 8,508]

do these memory cards ever get corrupted or fail?

That never happened to me. But this medium weakens after many many many re-writing, it's a known issue.

But for reading, it's very reliable and resistant (unless you fold them and make them crack).

Pins can oxydate with time, you need to clean them with alcool.

All my mp3 are on my computer too, I would never use these cards for backups.

If I lost one? I buy another one for 10 $.

iPodwhat?

[King Mark 3,631]

I wouldn't really change anything except take KM's approach and keep only what you listen to the most and dump everything else off the iPod.

yep, and I only have a Nano 16gb so I make do