iTunes 256 kbps burned to disc.

I lack the system (home or car) and the ears to tell the difference between good lossy and redbook. However, I always import as lossless. Everything is stored in my Itunes as ALAC. The reason for this is the versatility.

I can make an aac copy for IPOD. If I want to make a mix mp3 cd, like for a road trip when I don't feel like screwing with IPOD, I can burn MP3s. At home I can play lossless with a few keystrokes, and of course, now I have a digital backup of all my CDs.

 

signal processing can be kind of complicated. if Shane's wikipedia paste is overly technical, I can try:

sample: a chunk of a continuous audio stream isolated for digital storage. samples can be of any size--and their size is referred to as the signal's bit depth. samples are at the core of the analogue-versus-digital debate--if you've ever seen the classic comparison of a 'smooth curve' analogue signal versus a 'staircase' digital signal, each sample is one 'step' in the staircase.

sample rate: how many of these samples are strung together in one second of a signal. CD audio carries 44100 of them per second.

bitrate: bitrate is a measurement of how much data is being put out in a specific period of time during playback of a digital file, as I mentioned earlier. mp3s and their kin are measured in data per second, as in 'kbps' (kilobytes per second). bitrate is calculated by multiplying the sample rate by the bit depth by the number of channels.

so, bitrate is substantially different than the other three parameters, being a
function reliant on both sample rate and bit depth. this is why bitrate is not super useful in discussing the sound of lossless audio--it yields a single number which is great for comparing efficiency of compression algorithms, but which doesn't give enough information about the multiple dimensions of an uncompressed signal.

 

Another important consequence of the bit depth is that it determines the maximum potential dynamic range of the sample

 

I remember buying my first downloads circa 2000. They were 192 Kbps and good-sounding, but the originals sounded better of course. Now 320Kbps burned to cd is really close to the original, to the point most people would not tell the difference unless they have a very expensive, wisely installed rig (room conditioning) AND golden ears.

 

that's true, although there are other major factors that influence the end product, like dithering. also--that particular dynamic range is not the same as the 'DR rating' of a recording so often discussed around here.

 

Some releases are itunes only and thus 256 kbps. When I buy these and burn them to disc then reimport them into itunes how come the bit rates suddenly jump to 700-1000kbps? Does that mean 700-1000kbps of the original 256kbps? Or is there some sort of zip file-ish un-compression that happens if you burn these files to disc? (I think I know the answer. Just double checking.)

 

My guess is that you have it set to import as ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) and it is just spinning up the wrapper size without providing anything to sound quality.

 

Yup. Got it. Thanks.

 

However, there is a key issue. To burn a lossy file to a CD, then rip it as a lossy, will get you a transcode. 256 of 256 if you will. Whatever that is. Ripping it as lossless means it is the same as the 256 lossy file, but with a much higher file size.

In other words, unless it's lossless, stick to the OG file.

 

The main question is why would you ever do that? The original file you bought is in your iTunes library, and there it should stay. It's as good as it will ever sound, at the correct size.

 

Because in order for me to take itunes downloads and convert them to FLAC files via XLD I have to burn the downloads to disc then re-upload them into my itunes in order for me to convert them. I don't know why. When I convert youtube clips to mp3 via itunes there's no problem converting them to FLAC via XLD, but for some reason direct downloads from itunes will not convert unless I copy them to disc first then re insert them in itunes.

And as the first responder noted I automatically have my itunes adjusted for ALAC rips.

Also, despite your assertion that itunes is where my music "should stay" I prefer to have all my digital files stored on hard disc just in case. Especially those that are only available via itunes download (i.e. no where else/on disc).

 

It's fine. I only do that because of my answer above. I don't download too many things from itunes. Only what is only available in that format.

 

If you are using XLD to transcode (convert files) from one format to another all you have do in XLD is have the file format you want to convert to set in Preferences and a destination selected where you want to store the transcoded file then from the toolbar in XLD select "Open Folder As Disc". The browser window will open, follow the path to the artist/album so that the songs are showing. The select Transcode. You now have a set of FLAC (or whatever you chose) files from your AAC downloads.

However as someone else mentioned there is no point or gain in doing this because you still have a lossy file only now it's the size of a lossless file without any improvement in sound.

In terms of storage purposes it would be much easier and advised to have and an external hard drive to back up your files using Time Machine or something like Carbon Copy Cloner.

 

everything mwheelerk said. also:

can you explain what you mean by this? (how is it adjusted, etc.) I have a feeling we may be able to free you from some unnecessary steps here, but I want to be certain.

when you say 'hard disc,' you mean a physical CD or DVD hard copy backup that contains the files, right? normally, 'hard disk' refers to your hard drive, which is most likely where your itunes downloads already live.

 

Yeah, sorry. I meant CDs. (live and learn correct jargon)
As for my itunes I have it set to automatically rip my CDs to ALAC lossless. I usually convert these to FLAC. But I never change anything when I download digitally from itunes because it's so rare that I ever do it. Like I said, only if the album is only available in this format, so like, twice a year. I never even think to change settings to accommodate this.
Also I want to clear I have no problem with my current set up. I was just curious why the bit rate changed under the circumstances I mentioned above. I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't getting an actual higher bit rate when importing the burned CD with the original 256 kbps files back into itunes.

 

I know there's plenty of other information out there, but since we are here and the OP mentioned Apple Lossless... anyone here notice a difference between Apple lossless and other lossless encoding? I usually rip to Apple Lossless personally and have not noticed.

 

Everything I do is to and from external hard drive. I never leave anything in my itunes on my laptop. I store everything on CDs or external hard drives.

 

All my files are Apple lossless first then converted to FLAC. Haven't noticed a change yet. But I honestly stopped even trying to play the Apple files because it was such a pain for compatibility reasons. I've never had a problem with FLAC so I always just roll with those. Obviously Apple may be more compatible in recent years but I was so frustrated initially that I stopped even trying. I just do ALAC first because I have a Mac and itunes to rip. But I play the converted FLAC files (of the original ALAC) through foobar2000 on a Samsung laptop.

 

are you burning audio CDs or data CDs when you go through this procedure? to say you're 'ripping' burned CDs you've suggests they're audio CDs, which I would strongly recommend against.

this is because to do so will degrade the SQ of the resulting ripped files. this is why mwheelerk suggested you change your settings on XLD in order to move directly between FLAC and ALAC without having to use physical media as an intermediary. you can move between FLAC and ALAC as often as you like this way with no loss in sound quality. you could also then burn those files to data discs for backup purposes.

if you burn data CDs (or DVDs, even) you'll use less media. and if you ever need to recover or use the files from those media, you can just drag and drop them off the discs onto your computer and do a three-second file copy instead of a minute-long ripping procedure that also affects the SQ of the files that result.

 

there's no SQ difference, no. the only difference is that ALAC files are easier for mac and ipod users since itunes and apple devices don't read FLAC.

 

Usually I do bounce between ALAC and FLAC without the physical format. I should clarify further: I do not use a blank CD when I'm ripping files from a purchased CD. 99% of the time I buy a CD, rip it ALAC in itunes, then make a separate set of FLAC files from those ALACs. So I have the "store bought" CD, ALAC files and FLAC files. Only when I dealing with digitally only files do I introduce the blank CDs.
However, as with each day on these forums I learn something new. I was just wondering what the difference between blank CDs were while purchasing a new batch last week. Had no idea that the difference in type made a difference in quality. Thanks for the head's up. Do you have any specific recommendation on exact CDs/CD-Rs to burn to?

 

the process you use when you're converting digital downloads is the one I was referring to. are those audio CDs or data CDs you're making? if they're audio CDs and you're then ripping them after burning, you're degrading the SQ of the music on the resulting files.

and, unfortunately, I don't have a recommendation for blank discs. black memorex used to be my go-to, but I haven't used optical media in ages and the quality has probably changed. I use thumb drives for physical data transfer now.

 

So you don't transfer anything TO physical media these days? Just FROM physical media, correct? Not judging, just asking for clarity.

 

not in years. optical media for physical data transfer and backup is more or less outmoded at this point in favor of massive hard drives (for backup and storage) and thumb drives (for data transfer).

and I barely even use thumb drives anymore. google drive and dropbox are much faster ways to move files from person to person, as long as the recipient has an internet connection.

I know I keep saying this, but still--you probably don't want to burn files you downloaded to audio CDs and then rip those CDs, if that's what you're doing. you'll be degrading the quality of the music in the ripped files you finish with. those downloaded files can be converted to other formats using XLD just as any other file can. and you'll save a lot of money and shelf space on media if you backup those files to data DVDs (or even a big hard drive, as above) instead of CDs, especially audio CDs.

 

I'll have to look into which discs are best these days for storage (in the last few days blank media is available... ), but given that the music that I store in this way is already compromised from the start (itunes only mastering/availability) or needle drops from digital sources (youtube) I'm not overly concerned, just overly cautious.