ipod formats

have been copying a lot of my albums to my PC (Windows XP), for when i (eventually) get an ipod.

Just read on a forum that the ipod is not compatible with WMA files and thought... does this mean I cant transfer tracks as normal (lossless) audio files with my PC? Or is there another format I could use? Obviously MP3 is the more popular way, but i'm not sure I fancy loosing sound quality...

I have been using Nero Express to copy the CD files to my PC. I'll be keeping my whole music collection on my PC, so I can afford to have large files on the ipod, as opposed to MP3.

Can anybody tell me if there is another audio format I could use (compatible with ipod)? Thanks!

 

Do you really think you are going to notice the difference between a lossless file and a decent mp3 on an ipod, when on the move, and using cheapo earbuds?

I very much doubt it...

 

err, who said anything about cheapo earbuds, or being on the move?

Actually, I have a very high quality pair of Shure e2c phones - I wouldnt even think about using the 'cheapo' ones.

Maybe I wouldnt notice any difference, but its peace of mind.

Any 'answers' please?

 

Apple lossless (dur ). Its in the itunes options somewhere, which you'll need if you get an ipod. All compression formats loose quality though. You can just play wave files on ipod if you want but the battery doesn't last as long as it has to keep caching.

 

ok thanks

 

nooo noo no a million times no. LOSSY compression systems lose quality, a true lossless format won't - hence the name - of course the hardware you play it on also has a bearing on the output quality so if you play lossless files through shoddy hardware then it's pointless.

 

ok julian, thanks. So, what format are you recommending for my circumstances?

 

i store all my music as flac (ripped using eac on secure mode to ensure i get the best possible copy) - i listen to this using a dedicated server and squeezebox.
for in the car and out and about i then transcode the tracks i want to listen to to 128 or 96 kbps wma (i prefer it to mp3 although if i have them as mp3's i don;t bother transcoding the mp3 to wma) i find this gives me a decent compromise between size and quality (the eternal trade off with lossy formats).
in your circumstance (if you have lossless source material) i'd convert to apple lossless (alc) and see how that goes then try lower bit rate mp3 or aac to improve quantity (and battery life i believe) until the loss of quality starts to annoy.

 

If you have 20gb to play with then I would use lossless formats becuase what are you going to with 20gb otherwise? I have a 512MB player and use 196kbps MP3 files. Its not audiophone but with my Senny PX30s it sounds fairly good, base is weak but treble is calm and vocals are clear and smooth.

 

Well I dont have much music, but 20 gb would struggle to contain 1/3 of the music I have even using the "oh so terrible" lossy formats that everyone loves to dismiss, but nobody can really tell the difference

I dunno... hifi forums do genuinely seem to be home to most paranoid, delusional people at times

 

You make it sound like it's a bad thing

But seriously Paul, just because you and I can't tell the difference doesn't mean no one can. With certain amps and speakers I thought iPods were as good as anything one needs, but I heard this against my CD Player with Bottleneck's valve pre and could not believe the difference.

 

If this argument is surrounding MP3 again then you two need to get your ears checked or more honestly decide if you are actually into Hi Fidelity Audio. MP3s a blatantly inferior to the original, it hurts at any kind of volume.

 

oh dear i think someone stepped on pauls pet peeve again - quick everyone look away, don;t make eye contact with the drunk, stoned, boy racer. sorry paul.

 

Which is kind of my point...

You are admitting that the ipod is not a particularly hifi source, and indeed, i concur. I am not slagging them because I own one, but its not a hifi source by any stretch.

As for the Shure's well yes they are better than the cheapo buds, but lets not get carried away here, my mate bought some (on my recommendation) and they are good for what they are, but really, they struggle to compete even with £30 full size headphones.

So, we have a rig, which in all probability, is being bought because portability is needed. So we have a less than stellar source through fairly average earphones, and you can STILL tell the difference.

Wow, you are amazing!

Gary... I dont need my ears testing mate. Its the simple fact that some people will never admit they are wrong, I have tested this many times. I have tested this on many audiophiles. None could ever give consistant results. But yet, repeatedly people follow the other sheep and just join in and say its crap, with no real proper test conducted.

I am sure now it'll all be "I dont need to test it", or that it "doesn't prove anything", or that you "can't be bothered". Well you wouldnt would you, mr perfect...

But as you are unwilling to prove how great you are, then I am just as unwilling to believe you.

As for not being into "hifi" then maybe you are right, if hifi constitutes having £20 grands worth of bling boxes....

 

your loosing something with lossless, they do sound different, even on ipod. Not much but its there.

 

anex,
consider what you've just written you 'loose' something with lossless. your homework is to read and digest this
what you are suggesting is akin to saying that a programme will run slightly slower or differently if you zip, unzip and then run the unzipped version.

 

what format is 'aac'?

 

apple audio codec?

 

I think your tin foil hat needs changing....

Lossless compression is so called because it is exactly that. You get EXACTLY the same thing out as you put in. There are no effects due to jitter or anything else (as jitter only becomes important at conversion time).

Lossy compression you do not get the same thing out, but the differences range from imperceptible (especially if you do not have the original to make direct comparison to) to the blatent, depending on the level of compression used.

 

Plus there would be more than a few problems if compressed archive files etc - e.g. cab, zip ended up having 'lost bits' when it becomes time to uncompress them