Who has Dynaudio?

[VWKev]

For me, 320k is a complete waste of space guys, you'd be very hard pushed to hear quality over 192kbps, honestly if you can hear it over 192k then you will be classed as superhuman, don't believe the people that claim they can either. If your listening to something like an audio book then even 128k will be more than enough.

I'm not sure which encoder itunes uses as I would never entertain that on my PC. So I have dug around and found LAME encoder for itunes which seems to be an add-on for it. I would strongly recommend using this.

http://mac.rbytes.net/cat/mac/audio/itunes-lame-encoder/

If you have the option of using a variable rate then I would recommend using that rather than constant, what variable will do is that when you have a quiet part of the song it wont encode it, it will leave it alone so you then get the benefit of it not encoding hiss etc and your end result will be a smaller mp3.

[DL]

Kev, seriously you can really hear a difference between lossless and 192kbps. I have all this set up at work and the difference is huge. I'm in no way an audiophile and don't even really listen to music that much but I really mean it there is a big noticable difference between 192 and lossless/cd quality. If however you only use your ipod and a dock or a pair of headphones I can understand that you would not notice the difference in sound. You'll probably disagree but if ever you are in Cambridge pop into the shop!!

[matchboy]

next time i'm in cambridge i'm gonna pop in and look at all the stuff i can't afford to buy!!

[DL]

Sorry I read your post again, 192 against 320 there isn't a great difference. I just always stick anything at the highest quality!! As I said earlier I can be a bit anal, sorry!

[gizzywizzy]

Sorry I read your post again, 192 against 320 there isn't a great difference. I just always stick anything at the highest quality!! As I said earlier I can be a bit anal, sorry!

 :wink:Bummer!!

[Rolfe]

I had an interesting experience when I first got my iPod.  As I said, I didn't have iTunes on a PC at the time (slow dial-up at home and no admin privileges for office computer).  A friend loaded up some stuff she thought I would like from her own collection.

It sounded, well not horrible, but uninvolving and two-dimensional.  I thought, oh dear, that was a waste of money wasn't it.

However, I was trying to learn a piece of music at the time, so I showed up with a CD of the Brahms German Requiem and asked her to put it on the iPod for me, which she did.  I was only thinking of it as a learning tool.

I was blown away.  I couldn't take the earphones out of my ears.  The difference was astonishing.

When I asked my friend about this, she came up with some complete BS about how her files had been copied and recopied over several computers, so they must have degraded.  Well, even I know better than that.  We're not talking about magnetic tape here.  I can only imagine that he own files were at a higher compression, and had lost that je ne sais quoi.

I agree, once I plug the iPod into the Linn Majik amplifier and play it through the Linn Toukan speakers, it's not quite the same thing.  But using the standard iTunes settings to copy a CD, then playing it through the earphones, it's definitely "good enough".

Incidentally, I noticed something else interesting.  One day I was absolutely compelled to listen to the Berlioz Te Deum, which I didn't have a CD of (just a cassette tape which some day I must convert).  So I went to the iStore and bought a recording of it, while I was at work (yes, I did torture these admin privileges out of IT in the end).  I was so keen to listen that I plugged the iPod's earphones into the audio jack of the computer and listened to the beginning while it was still downloading.

I didn't much care for it.  I wondered again about compression, or if I'd just chosen a poorly engineered recording.  However, I waited till it had downloaded, changed the earphones to the iPod itself, and listened again.  It was great.  After some discussion on another forum, the opinion was that my office computer has a poor sound card.  Just shows again that the iPod is well engineered to give a very acceptable sound in the context it's supposed to be used in.

I just wish iTunes was about 200% more intuitive though, and track naming was rational and consistent.

Rolfe.

[VWKev]

I had an interesting experience when I first got my iPod.  As I said, I didn't have iTunes on a PC at the time (slow dial-up at home and no admin privileges for office computer).  A friend loaded up some stuff she thought I would like from her own collection.

It sounded, well not horrible, but uninvolving and two-dimensional.  I thought, oh dear, that was a waste of money wasn't it.

However, I was trying to learn a piece of music at the time, so I showed up with a CD of the Brahms German Requiem and asked her to put it on the iPod for me, which she did.  I was only thinking of it as a learning tool.

I was blown away.  I couldn't take the earphones out of my ears.  The difference was astonishing.

When I asked my friend about this, she came up with some complete BS about how her files had been copied and recopied over several computers, so they must have degraded.  Well, even I know better than that.  We're not talking about magnetic tape here.  I can only imagine that he own files were at a higher compression, and had lost that je ne sais quoi.

I agree, once I plug the iPod into the Linn Majik amplifier and play it through the Linn Toukan speakers, it's not quite the same thing.  But using the standard iTunes settings to copy a CD, then playing it through the earphones, it's definitely "good enough".

Incidentally, I noticed something else interesting.  One day I was absolutely compelled to listen to the Berlioz Te Deum, which I didn't have a CD of (just a cassette tape which some day I must convert).  So I went to the iStore and bought a recording of it, while I was at work (yes, I did torture these admin privileges out of IT in the end).  I was so keen to listen that I plugged the iPod's earphones into the audio jack of the computer and listened to the beginning while it was still downloading.

I didn't much care for it.  I wondered again about compression, or if I'd just chosen a poorly engineered recording.  However, I waited till it had downloaded, changed the earphones to the iPod itself, and listened again.  It was great.  After some discussion on another forum, the opinion was that my office computer has a poor sound card.  Just shows again that the iPod is well engineered to give a very acceptable sound in the context it's supposed to be used in.

I just wish iTunes was about 200% more intuitive though, and track naming was rational and consistent.

Rolfe.

Your thoughts are spot on Rolfe, It depends on what bitrate is used, it depends on the quality of the original format, most importantly the endocer used. The advice given already is fine, and my advice is fine too, my advice was to give the best encode possible at a bitrate thats good quality at a very good file size. Of course standalone CD with a seperates system will be completely different and again vinyl, with a marble turntable, stanton or ortafon needles, valve amps with some classic floor standing speakers will blow your socks off, but this is listening to music in the car, it shouldnt be taken this seriously.

[AdrianM]

I had an interesting experience when I first got my iPod.  As I said, I didn't have iTunes on a PC at the time (slow dial-up at home and no admin privileges for office computer).  A friend loaded up some stuff she thought I would like from her own collection.

It sounded, well not horrible, but uninvolving and two-dimensional.  I thought, oh dear, that was a waste of money wasn't it.

However, I was trying to learn a piece of music at the time, so I showed up with a CD of the Brahms German Requiem and asked her to put it on the iPod for me, which she did.  I was only thinking of it as a learning tool.

I was blown away.  I couldn't take the earphones out of my ears.  The difference was astonishing.

When I asked my friend about this, she came up with some complete BS about how her files had been copied and recopied over several computers, so they must have degraded.  Well, even I know better than that.  We're not talking about magnetic tape here.  I can only imagine that he own files were at a higher compression, and had lost that je ne sais quoi.

I agree, once I plug the iPod into the Linn Majik amplifier and play it through the Linn Toukan speakers, it's not quite the same thing.  But using the standard iTunes settings to copy a CD, then playing it through the earphones, it's definitely "good enough".

Incidentally, I noticed something else interesting.  One day I was absolutely compelled to listen to the Berlioz Te Deum, which I didn't have a CD of (just a cassette tape which some day I must convert).  So I went to the iStore and bought a recording of it, while I was at work (yes, I did torture these admin privileges out of IT in the end).  I was so keen to listen that I plugged the iPod's earphones into the audio jack of the computer and listened to the beginning while it was still downloading.

I didn't much care for it.  I wondered again about compression, or if I'd just chosen a poorly engineered recording.  However, I waited till it had downloaded, changed the earphones to the iPod itself, and listened again.  It was great.  After some discussion on another forum, the opinion was that my office computer has a poor sound card.  Just shows again that the iPod is well engineered to give a very acceptable sound in the context it's supposed to be used in.

I just wish iTunes was about 200% more intuitive though, and track naming was rational and consistent.

Rolfe.

A couple of things; first, the encoding algorithms used is just one factor. Another important one, more so in the past few decades is the mastering quality. A lot of music these days has little dynamic range due to sound engineers attempting to make everything so loud (do a google for "loudness wars"). This actually is okay for those environments with a lot of ambient noise, e.g. a car, but for home audio, it's awful. Really, really, awful. Although this trend tends to be more restricted to popular music rather than classic.

Yes, it was probably your sound card; very poor DACs may make an audible difference but most audio electronics these days have pretty good ones, that are at least good enough that quality differences are inaudible to Joe Average. The new iPods DACs are actually quite good. Of course, there may have been some other issues with your sound card too.

Oh, and iPod earbuds are really crappy. If you want good sound you should get yourself a better set of IEM; like the Shure 530 for instance.

[AdrianM]

I had an interesting experience when I first got my iPod.  As I said, I didn't have iTunes on a PC at the time (slow dial-up at home and no admin privileges for office computer).  A friend loaded up some stuff she thought I would like from her own collection.

It sounded, well not horrible, but uninvolving and two-dimensional.  I thought, oh dear, that was a waste of money wasn't it.

However, I was trying to learn a piece of music at the time, so I showed up with a CD of the Brahms German Requiem and asked her to put it on the iPod for me, which she did.  I was only thinking of it as a learning tool.

I was blown away.  I couldn't take the earphones out of my ears.  The difference was astonishing.

When I asked my friend about this, she came up with some complete BS about how her files had been copied and recopied over several computers, so they must have degraded.  Well, even I know better than that.  We're not talking about magnetic tape here.  I can only imagine that he own files were at a higher compression, and had lost that je ne sais quoi.

I agree, once I plug the iPod into the Linn Majik amplifier and play it through the Linn Toukan speakers, it's not quite the same thing.  But using the standard iTunes settings to copy a CD, then playing it through the earphones, it's definitely "good enough".

Incidentally, I noticed something else interesting.  One day I was absolutely compelled to listen to the Berlioz Te Deum, which I didn't have a CD of (just a cassette tape which some day I must convert).  So I went to the iStore and bought a recording of it, while I was at work (yes, I did torture these admin privileges out of IT in the end).  I was so keen to listen that I plugged the iPod's earphones into the audio jack of the computer and listened to the beginning while it was still downloading.

I didn't much care for it.  I wondered again about compression, or if I'd just chosen a poorly engineered recording.  However, I waited till it had downloaded, changed the earphones to the iPod itself, and listened again.  It was great.  After some discussion on another forum, the opinion was that my office computer has a poor sound card.  Just shows again that the iPod is well engineered to give a very acceptable sound in the context it's supposed to be used in.

I just wish iTunes was about 200% more intuitive though, and track naming was rational and consistent.

Rolfe.

Your thoughts are spot on Rolfe, It depends on what bitrate is used, it depends on the quality of the original format, most importantly the endocer used. The advice given already is fine, and my advice is fine too, my advice was to give the best encode possible at a bitrate thats good quality at a very good file size. Of course standalone CD with a seperates system will be completely different and again vinyl, with a marble turntable, stanton or ortafon needles, valve amps with some classic floor standing speakers will blow your socks off, but this is listening to music in the car, it shouldnt be taken this seriously.

I'd disagree with the vinyl comments; poor dynamic range, pops and hisses, and all the other typical analogue issues. Valve amps are just over hyped, expensive, underpowered, room heaters that add distortion. They look pretty though.

[Rolfe]

I've got a Linn Sondek, that I always expect to sound better than it does.  I think it has issues, maybe the stylus, but it came back from the repair shop with an interesting bill, sounding just the same.

Rolfe.