Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: How good (or bad) is iTunes? (Read 9358 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

How good (or bad) is iTunes?

Hi everybody

I'm a Winamp/Foobar guy myself, but wanted to get to know my way around iTunes becouse a lot of my friends use it as their main player/ripper-encoder/library on their PCs, so i downloaded 4.9 and have a couple of questions.

I want to know how good is the "use error correction when reading Audio CDs" option for ripping  , i already know iTunes uses FhG for encoding and i find it acceptable, but i really dislike that it only adds an ID3v2, and that i cant define how i want my files named except for adding the track number, there arent ways around this are there?

thanks

EDIT: I use EAC and am used to a good share of encoding options, i use Lame mp3 and MPC, but trying to encode in iTunes is a little shifty, like whats "smart encoding adjustments" in the custom mp3 settings window?
we was young an' full of beans

How good (or bad) is iTunes?

Reply #1 –
Quote
EDIT: I use EAC and am used to a good share of encoding options, i use Lame mp3 and MPC, but trying to encode in iTunes is a little shifty, like whats "smart encoding adjustments" in the custom mp3 settings window?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=311709"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

From what I have learned here at HA, iTunes does not use FhG, although it is identified as such with Encspot. IIRC, they got some basic encoder from FhG and did their own tuning/tweaking. I find the quality surprisingly good, although I haven't tested it with killer samples.
The smart encoding adjustments mean e.g. that for 192k and above, always simple stereo is used, even if you select JS in the options. The question is: is that "smart"? Maybe if they have a crappy JS implementation, who knows?
Proverb for Paranoids: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
-T. Pynchon (Gravity's Rainbow)

How good (or bad) is iTunes?

Reply #2 –
IMHO, if you use iTunes for encoding you should use AAC. It is miles ahead of the mp3 encoder.

I don't know how solid its ripper is, but I've only got clean rips with it even on relatively scratched CD's. I'm not sure if the Windows and Mac ripping engines are identical though.

How good (or bad) is iTunes?

Reply #3 –
Yeah, i read FhG on EncSpot, but whatever it is, its actually quite good, whenever i rip to CBR i use 160kbps, so if i select 160kbps, set the stereo mode to joint stereo and enable the "smart encoding adjustments", will i get JS or not?

I dont doubt AAC's quality, but I dont use AAC because i dont have an iPod and my permanent collection on my PC is already in MPC and a duplicate collection in mp3 for my portable and car players.

thanks
we was young an' full of beans

How good (or bad) is iTunes?

Reply #4 –
Quote
Yeah, i read FhG on EncSpot, but whatever it is, its actually quite good (...)
I don't think so. at least not for the ppl that took the test.
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

How good (or bad) is iTunes?

Reply #5 –
Quote
Yeah, i read FhG on EncSpot, but whatever it is, its actually quite good, whenever i rip to CBR i use 160kbps, so if i select 160kbps, set the stereo mode to joint stereo and enable the "smart encoding adjustments", will i get JS or not?


According the most recent MP3 listening test, its probably the worst MP3 encoder still in widespread use.  This mirrors my own experience with their codec. 

Is there some reason you're using iTunes as an MP3 encoder?  You mentioned that you're used to EAC + LAME, so why not use that instead?  Or at least install itunes-lame.

How good (or bad) is iTunes?

Reply #6 –
Quote
Quote
Yeah, i read FhG on EncSpot, but whatever it is, its actually quite good (...)
I don't think so. at least not for the ppl that took the test.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=311866"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That test is @ 112kbps VBR w/ joint stereo. It's much better if you stick to the default presets or use the highest quality VBR setting.

How good (or bad) is iTunes?

Reply #7 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
Yeah, i read FhG on EncSpot, but whatever it is, its actually quite good (...)
I don't think so. at least not for the ppl that took the test.
That test is @ 112kbps VBR w/ joint stereo. It's much better if you stick to the default presets or use the highest quality VBR setting.
yes, and that is to be comparable with the other codecs.
the test showed that at least with v4.2 and with that bitrate the codec is not very well tuned. my guess is that it's not going to perform very different at 160kbps in comparison.
it's questionable if the issues have been resolved by now...

[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']edit: spelling[/span]
Nothing but a Heartache - Since I found my Baby ;)

How good (or bad) is iTunes?

Reply #8 –
well, read my first post, i only intend to learn my way around itunes scince so many of my friends use it and im at their houses a lot, i personally don't use itunes for my personal rips and encodes, but wanted to know if its good or not because i get a lot of itunes-ripped music from my friends.

i mentioned i use 160kbps, i use that with Lame and EAC for my own use sometimes and sharing, scince my friends dont fully understand the concept of VBR.

as for the tests, isnt the encoder in 4.9 newer?, maybe some tests should be done with the latest release.
we was young an' full of beans

How good (or bad) is iTunes?

Reply #9 –
Quote
yes, and that is to be comparable with the other codecs. the test showed that at least with v4.2 and with that bitrate the codec is not very well tuned. my guess is that it's not going to perform very different at 160kbps in comparison.[/size]
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=311882"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


--preset 128 is the best setting for LAME at that bitrate, while 128kbps CBR would have been best for iTunes. 112 VBR is like using some poor command-line string in LAME.

I'm not saying that it is a terrific mp3 encoder, because it is not, but it's not as bad as that test projects it as.

Quote
as for the tests, isnt the encoder in 4.9 newer?, maybe some tests should be done with the latest release.


AFAIK they stopped improving it years ago.

How good (or bad) is iTunes?

Reply #10 –
iTunes' MP3 codec is definitely not a recommended option below 192kbps CBR, a level below which it really starts to sound abysmal. At 192kbps CBR, if you force joint stereo (and turn off the "smart encoding" settings), it begins to sound "ok." Even then, its performance is probably only comparable to --preset cbr 160 with LAME. The VBR mode seems to be quite erratic as well, and in either case, there is no lowpass to speak of, which may lead to ringing.

How good (or bad) is iTunes?

Reply #11 –
Quote
At 192kbps CBR, if you force joint stereo (and turn off the "smart encoding" settings), it begins to sound "ok."[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=311907"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


hmm... I found it to be much better using plain stereo at this bitrate

How good (or bad) is iTunes?

Reply #12 –
If this encoder is so controversial, i think some proper tests are needed just to clear things up, some tests should be done with 128k, 160k, 192k..., and various VBR settings to find the best VBR modes and to try to figure out the best settings on this encoder.

Scince iTunes is so popular with so called "normal" people and people who just give into the hype and have some or little clue as to what makes a good mp3 file, the tests should be geared toward CBR in the above mentioned bit rates, as those are whats most commonly used by the people that rip with iTunes (i know this from from personal experience).
we was young an' full of beans

How good (or bad) is iTunes?

Reply #13 –
Quote
Quote
At 192kbps CBR, if you force joint stereo (and turn off the "smart encoding" settings), it begins to sound "ok."[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=311907"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


hmm... I found it to be much better using plain stereo at this bitrate
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=311965"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Could you give more information? What kind of sample benefits from plain stereo over joint stereo, which should be lossless? Have you tested it blindly?

How good (or bad) is iTunes?

Reply #14 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
At 192kbps CBR, if you force joint stereo (and turn off the "smart encoding" settings), it begins to sound "ok."[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=311907"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


hmm... I found it to be much better using plain stereo at this bitrate
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=311965"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Could you give more information? What kind of sample benefits from plain stereo over joint stereo, which should be lossless? Have you tested it blindly?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=312104"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rule of thumb: Joint stereo sucks at lower bitrates.  The bitrate cut off is anybody's guess.  But JS won't matter as much at 320 kbps.  Even then stereo is superior.

How good (or bad) is iTunes?

Reply #15 –
Quote
Rule of thumb: Joint stereo sucks at lower bitrates.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=312160"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 
Fine. And how do you explain that ALL developers of ALL modern encoders are using Joint Stero as default, especially for low bitrate encodings?

How good (or bad) is iTunes?

Reply #16 –
Quote
Quote
Rule of thumb: Joint stereo sucks at lower bitrates.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=312160"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Fine. And how do you explain that ALL developers of ALL modern encoders are using Joint Stero as default, especially for low bitrate encodings?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=312162"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

By trolling. Don't feed him.