March 4th, 2009
One of the many things I’d like to do is build a master iTunes library of my music. The idea is simple: rip and store all of the music I like to one place. Preferably an external hard drive used only for the music library. Then, over time, as I upgrade to new computers, the library drive could just be moved to each new machine. Storage capacity on hard drives is finally at a point where it’s economically possible to do this. This lead me to consider the different file formats available for audio conversion. As I’d like this library to last through the ages, I want the sound quality of the music stored within to be at the highest quality possible. Of course, the best way to do that would be to encode everything with zero compression. Some very basic math shows that a typical album’s worth of music is less than one gigabyte of actual data. So, a one-terabyte drive would easily hold right around 1,000 albums. Or in other words, my entire music collection. This would be the best case scenario. But as I mentioned in a previous post, I’d like to (eventually) get an iPod Touch. And even the highest-capacity iPod Touch, with 32 gigabytes worth of storage, would fill up quickly with these uncompressed files. So, some file compression will be needed. I decided to test the three major compression formats available in iTunes: MP3, AAC and Apple Lossless. I set both MP3 and AAC to the highest possible quality setting (320 kbps). Apple Lossless has only one setting. I encoded the same song, “Adventures In Solitude” by The New Pornographers, using the three different formats. I then listened to each version on my studio (see: *good*) headphones. Before I go into my findings on the audio, here’s a comparison of file sizes (the song is 4:16 in length):
MP3: 9.8 MB
AAC: 9.8 MB
Apple Lossless: 23.6 MB
As you can see, MP3 and AAC come in at the same size, while Apple Lossless is about 2.5 times bigger. Now, on to the audio taste test.
I listened to the MP3 version first, followed by the AAC version. The AAC version definitely stood out in some places. The song sounded brighter, and a little bit fuller. That’s not to say that the MP3 version sounded bad. But there was a difference. I then moved on to the Apple Lossless version. That apparent brightness that was found in the AAC file was no longer present. But this version seemed to have more overall presence, and the lack of compression between this file and the others felt very obvious. This lead me to select Apple Lossless as the winner in this audio format competition. Not only have I found its sound to be superior, but the file size isn’t that much higher than either of the other two formats. Some more basic math shows that a 32 GB iPod Touch could hold over 1,000 songs in Apple Lossless format, which is fine. It’s not like any of these formats at these settings would allow for a one-to-one copy of my entire music library on to the iPod.
For what it’s worth, I still think the other formats have their place. For example, I wouldn’t release podcasts or songs in anything other than MP3 format. Furthermore, I don’t think that MP3 and AAC sound bad. I just found that I got more out of Apple Lossless than the other formats. Now, all I have to do is buy an external drive and an iPod Touch (and an Apple Airport Express so I can stream my music library to my stereo in the other room). Sure. Like I’ll ever have the money for any of those things.
March 4th, 2009 at 2:31 am
Hi Shawno,
I’ve done similar tests before, and found OGG to be a little ahead of the curve when it comes to compression and quality against MP3. the only drawback is of course it’s a uncommon format, very few desktop media players convert to it, and there is (afaik) one two or three manufacturers who put ogg format support on their players (microsoft and apple, not being two of them).For general purposes (and as I’m a ipod user), I encode in 256k aac, I feel I get a better quality than mp3 for personal needs, for podcasting 128k mp3. My hearing has noticably got worse over the years, so the quality I craved for in my early 20s has wained as I head towards 40.In the light of more and more people listening to music online through streams or services like last.fm and spotify or even artist producing “ipod versions” of their songs, high fidelity is slowly moving out the door. Which is a pity, but saying that, if you have a damn good set of headphones, and a big storage media player – why not lossless.
March 4th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Thanks for your thoughts, Rowlz. I’ll admit that I’m no audiophile snob. I conducted this little experiment more to satisfy my nagging O.C.D. than anything else. I’ve put together “master iTunes libraries” before, and have always wound up having to delete them for one reason or another. This time, I’d like to do it and never have to do it again. Had I not conducted this experiment, and then say, encoded everything in AAC, a few years from now I’d be wondering if I had made the right choice, and probably would’ve wound up doing it all over again. But, whatever. I have issues. It’s also no surprise to me that MP3′s created with iTunes don’t sound as good as AAC’s created with iTunes, especially since AAC is the format of the iTunes Music Store. For the longest time, I wouldn’t use iTunes to encode podcasts, because the quality of the MP3′s was lousy. I used LAME for awhile, and that worked better. I’m sure if I compared iTunes MP3 encoder to OGG or any other kind of encoder, I’d probably hear some differences there, too. But you know how it is. This is an Apple house, so it’s easiest to just keep it all going under iTunes.
March 7th, 2009 at 1:12 am
Where are you going to put the 1TB backup drive you’ll need for your 1TB music library?
I suggest 32K MP3 for your backup format. That way if the music drive goes down, you won’t be losing anything important.
That’s what I do. I keep my 320K MP3s in their original wrappers and never play them so they don’t wear out.
March 7th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I think that’s great. I always prefer higher quality sound, if it’s feasible. I don’t know much about the various formats though.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:13 am
AAC is a superior encoding format to MP3, so a 320kbps AAC version should sound better than a 320 kbps MP3 version, all other things being equal…
and Apple Lossless is compressed, but it’s lossless compression, so there is no loss of information or sound quality… so if you convert an AIFF CD quality file to Apple Lossless, it should sound exactly the same…
April 18th, 2009 at 10:53 am
I’ve decided for now to encode my CD’s at “iTunes Plus” level (256 kbps VBR AAC) because I’ve wound with an 8 GB iPhone instead of a 32 GB iPod Touch. Much less storage space. And the sound quality is fine. Not as good as Apple Lossless, but it’s good enough.
April 18th, 2009 at 11:01 am
I do the same, 8gb Nano. This is good for me, as my hearing has dropped over the years. I cannot really tell all that much difference if it’s over 256kbps
August 11th, 2009 at 11:21 am
You say of lossless: “Not only have I found its sound to be superior, but the file size isn’t that much higher than either of the other two formats.”
Actually, it’s about 3 times larger! A huge difference. Thus means you could store about 3 times as many songs on a device using AAC 256 than using lossless.
If you can tell a difference most of the time than it probably does make sense to rip using lossless but if you are like me and can only tell a difference sometimes after having done some serious A/B listening tests, it makes more sense to go AAC. Remember that if you keep and sometimes play your CDs, you already have “lossless” and can always play those.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Great review. Clear, concise, and informative. Thank you. And, I agree with your assessment that the file size isn’t appreciably larger. With this type of data and compression, a 10X or 100X increase would have been problematic and not surprising. We’ll see this in HD video sources.
December 10th, 2009 at 2:22 am
I’ve battled over the Mp3/AAC(m4a)/Apple Lossless(ALAC)issue for a while. First let me start by saying I’m a fan of having a physical disc, so that is my lossless master.
I also believe AAC is technically superior to mp3, its a newer format and offers a better overall sound, so I use it- my chosen bit rate is 256K VBR “iTunes Plus”. IMO it offers a good trade off(sound quality/file size)for portable music play or burned CDs.
My issue however is the lack of compatibility, it seems everything plays the Mp3 format, but very few electronics(excluding computers) such as TVs, game systems, Blu-ray/DVD players, and car stereos support AAC unfortunately and I believe even less support ALAC and others like OGG & FLAC.
I do understand the appeal of the lossless format, however I dont have super golden ears like the anal audiophiles base their life on and the larger file sizes just aren’t worth it to me. IMO, using compression (for playback on CD-Rs or via an iPod/iPhone) just makes more sense.
January 19th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
This post is a bit old, but I found it in a Google search while trying to decide if I want to continue to buying music from the Amazon MP3 store, iTunes Plus or switch to CDs and go lossless. You mention that you listened using “studio” (which you equate to being good) headphones, but you don’t listen what manufacturer and model you are using, nor the rest of your equipment (as that can have a large impact on the sound quality). It would be nice to know what you were using to play back the music to give some perspective on your results.
Also, just a few thoughts: by now you’ve already made your decision, but have you considered ripping your CD collection into a lossless format (I’d prefer FLAC level 8 over Apple Lossless, but the iPod doesn’t support FLAC with out third party firmware and it doesn’t really matter anyway) and then do a batch transcode into a lossy format (such as Lame -V0 MP3 which is essentially equivalent to 320K MP3 but at a significantly lower file size, and widely considered to be virtually transparent vs lossless in blind A/B/X testing) so you have a copy of your music at the highest quality and a second copy more suited for portable listening?
Given the choice, that’s how I would do it – but unfortunately most of my CDs have been lost, stolen or damaged over the years and I have very few left. And then there’s the music I’ve downloaded both legally and illegally that never had an original lossless copy. Most of it was terrible anyway, so I suppose not much is lost after all
January 19th, 2010 at 11:56 pm
The headphones were manufactured by Yamaha. Unfortunately, I’m unable to discern the model number. I call them “studio” headphones because they’re big, over-the-ear headphones that I bought from a musical-instrument shop. They’re not earbuds or cheap drugstore-bought headphones.
And it’s now been over nine months since I originally posted this entry. A long time in the world of technology. I didn’t wind up with a 32 GB iPod Touch, but an 8 GB iPhone instead. So the need to make file sizes as small as possible is even more important. I’m still going with the iTunes Plus encoding, and I’m happy with that. A lossless codec would still be better. But for now, iTunes Plus is where I’m at.
October 22nd, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Disk Space is cheap. I converted all my cd’s to Apple Lossless, then I bought an ipod with 160GB hard drive. I listen to all my music in lossless format on the road using the ipod, and then I stream it to an airport express for my home stereo. If I ever need to save my music to a smaller drive, I have the option of converting it from the lossless format but so far I haven’t needed too. My 200+ cd’s take up about 94GB which in today’s world is minimal.