Novice ALAC Question

1. You can convert the file to lossless. Howevrr all you are doing is converting a low quality MP3 into lossless. You do not gain any new data.

2. No

3. Plug the analougue audio out on the apple tv into you 282. Set one of the inputs from din to phono. Job done.
The better way however is to digitial out from the appletv into a dac then into the 282.

1. You probably can, but all you are doing is "transcoding" the MP3 to a bigger file. The sound quality will not change. As you are guessing, you cannot retrieve the data you lost when compressing to MP3.

2. NOPE!!!! You would think if you spend the same amount on files as you would on the actual disc, that you would be able to download the WAVs. Not so. iTunes is evil. You would be MUCH better served to simply buy the music from a store, online if necessary. Then rip on your own.

2.1 You can upgrade your old (128kbps) files to their new and exciting (256kbps) "iTunes Plus" for a per song fee. I think it is 50 cents. DONT DO IT!!! 256 is just as unlistenable, or wonderful (depending on your aural acuity), as a 128. Once again..... evil. And people have problems with Microsoft???

3. Depends on what other gear you have. Do you have a PC or MAC? Or only iPod.

Cheapest to most expensive options (non exhaustive of course)

- mini-jack to RCA cable. iPod Earphone port to 282.
- iPod dock, analog out to 282
- AppleTV as you have now, to 282
- AppleTV to external DAC, then to 282
- Wadia iPod Dock, digital out to DAC then 282.
- Use your PC/MAC's soundcard/Digi-output to a cheap DAC then to 282
- PC/Mac to nice USB DAC to 282
- PC/MAC to an "off-ramp" type USB to digi converter then DAC then 282.... superclock time!!!!

etc, etc, etc..... let us know your maximum budget and we can throw out some short lists for you.

Technically though, assuming you have a computer, you already have everything you need to dip your toes. And certainly this would be the "cheapest" option.

What they said except that 256 is clearly better than 128. I don't want to put words in PC's mouth but what I think he meant is that it's still far away from a WAV or ALAC type file so the intermediate step is not worthwhile if you're looking for top quality.

AIFF available inexpensively here:

http://www.hdtracks.com/

quote:

Originally posted by js:
What they said except that 256 is clearly better than 128. I don't want to put words in PC's mouth but what I think he meant is that it's still far away from a WAV or ALAC type file so the intermediate step is not worthwhile if you're looking for top quality.

You can put those words in my mouth... no problem. I agree with that statement.

Also put these in there....

While 256 is technically better (less loss) and might be slightly more listenable, it is definitely NOT worth another $0.30 per song.

Highway robbery... For $1.29 per song hey should package up and mail you the ACTUAL DISC!!!!

Also, Apples claims, that 256kpbs is "virtually indistinguishable from the original recordings". This is an outright lie. I can easily hear the difference between a 320 (or V0) every single time, even on a short A/B.

Do they mean 'virtually as in 'imaginary'?

Removing the DRM encoding might possibly be worth 30 cents. But I wouldn't know for sure as I have never had to deal with them.

I find it hard to believe that artists/labels allow such handling of their art/product. Surely iTunes pays less (conjecture) to the copy write holders than distributors, due to only purchasing the right to sell the digital files.

Then they turn around and sell it for more than a high quality CD.

Dont buy crap music at crap bitrate for $1.30 per song.....

Support your local music store!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:

quote:

Originally posted by js:
What they said except that 256 is clearly better than 128. I don't want to put words in PC's mouth but what I think he meant is that it's still far away from a WAV or ALAC type file so the intermediate step is not worthwhile if you're looking for top quality.

You can put those words in my mouth... no problem. I agree with that statement.

Also put these in there....

While 256 is technically better (less loss) and might be slightly more listenable, it is definitely NOT worth another $0.30 per song.

Highway robbery... For $1.29 per song hey should package up and mail you the ACTUAL DISC!!!!

Also, Apples claims, that 256kpbs is "virtually indistinguishable from the original recordings". This is an outright lie. I can easily hear the difference between a 320 (or V0) every single time, even on a short A/B.

Do they mean 'virtually as in 'imaginary'?

Removing the DRM encoding might possibly be worth 30 cents. But I wouldn't know for sure as I have never had to deal with them.

I find it hard to believe that artists/labels allow such handling of their art/product. Surely iTunes pays less (conjecture) to the copy write holders than distributors, due to only purchasing the right to sell the digital files.

Then they turn around and sell it for more than a high quality CD.

Dont buy crap music at crap bitrate for $1.30 per song.....

Support your local music store!!!!!!!!!!!

First off all, there is no longer a $0.30 per song charge for 256kpbs tracks on iTunes. 256kpbs(AAC) is now the standard on iTunes and the entire catalogue is being updated ( quite quickly) at this very moment ( it is up to the Label/artist to submit the files, not Apple ). There are small boxes with a plus sign next to the " $ 9.99" to indicate if the songs on the album have been updated. I hardly call giving someone double the bitrate at $0.30 less " Highway robbery " Quite the opposite.

Second, the very sad truth is that the vast majority of people cannot hear the advantage of the higher bit-rates, they are not all like us. They may just have iPods with the ear-buds or ipods plugged into God knows what.... this may be because they simply cannot afford the good stuff or simply do not care, but countless tests have shown that regular people can easily tell the difference between 64kpbs-128kpbs-256kpbs, it is at rates above that when it starts to get tricky. For "virtually" everyone on the planet 256 will be great and if even a small percentage of " everyone else" discovers the difference in sound quality , it will be great for the ENTIRE industry.

You say " I find it hard to believe that artists/labels allow such handling of their art/product", haha right... myself and every other aspiring artist/engineer/producer/mixer on the planet are pulling our hair out in horror upon finding out that anyone on the planet can now hear our work at twice the bit-rate, at an easily audible improvement in sonic quality, for the same price as before !!! Please..... go ahead and buy "crap" music, lots of it, you can even just buy the track or tracks you like, at twice the bit-rate, for $0.99 per song.... not $1.30. And if you really like the track(s) and you discover you appreciate the higher sound quality, feel free to go down to your local independent music shop and purchase the cd , and you can try putting it in iTunes at a much higher bitrate to see if it is worthwhile for you......... and maybe, just maybe you will decide to go out and buy a better stereo, maybe even a NAIM ! Clearly Apple are completely evil, I really miss the days when the Big Labels dictated the music world.

If it's electronic music you love, you can go to the Beatport site and choose whichever bit-rate you like, but warning... big juicy WAV files are much more expensive then mp3's to download.... much more than 99cents. It is great to have the option though, and since it is not iTunes or Apple related, some people may not declare " Highway Robbery ".


yours truly,

MacHarroldbudd ( who thinks AAC sounds better than MP3)

Oh, and another good site for HD files is Music Giants, and their catalogue is growing nicely

http://www.musicgiants.com/musicgiants/

quote:

Originally posted by haroldbudd:

MacHarroldbudd ( who thinks AAC sounds better than MP3)

WMA and AAC > LAME MP3

quote:

Originally posted by js:

quote:

Originally posted by haroldbudd:

MacHarroldbudd ( who thinks AAC sounds better than MP3)

WMA and AAC > LAME MP3

Lame MP3@320kpbs > WMA@128kpbs > AAC@32kpbs

PCS has a bit of a flea in his arse about Apple.

same here ,more or less AllenB, but I dont think any of the artists made any money from the second hand discs I bought on Amazon, unfortunately !

Most of my purchased iTunes tracks are things that are not of vital importance but I would like to have anyway, and 256aac is fine for car/jogging/etc etc. ( or for when someone decides an awful disco track must be heard there and then at 2 in the morning, when the shops are closed... used vinyl shops that is ! ) iTunes is also great for those times.

Services like Rhapsody are also great for sampling new music.

quote:

Originally posted by garyi:
PCS has a bit of a flea in his arse about Apple.

Not so.... love my iPhone endlessly.

Best Product ever.