Electronic Music For Dummies Please

Gramophone's guide to computer-stored music, from downloading and ripping to streaming and playback

http://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/focus/listening-wirelessly

Here is another guide: http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/index.html

Right, so if I've got this right, MP3s are about the lowest of the low (thanks Amazon |(  ), ripping CDs to loss-less (or at least no more loss) FLACs good, WAVs better, but not so if you're just ripping from CDs?

Now, where do I buy stuff (legally) to download in the best possible format?  i-tunes?

Can I convert i-tunes stuff into FLACs or WAVs so I can play on something other than an i-thing?  I think my Onkyo NR-TX717 will read iTunes but ultimately I want to replace this receiver-based system with a pukka Cyrus-based system like I used to have in the UK.

WAVs are not better, FLACs sound just as good( they are like zip files and restore to the original uncompressed form), take up less space and are better for tagging. It is still often cheaper to buy the CD and rip it yourself into the format( you require - certainly for the music I buy from Amazon. Converting the already compressed itunes files into WAV or FLAC is fairly pointless - the data is already lost.

You don't gain anything using WAV over FLAC (or other lossless format), you just use more space and lose the tagging ability, WAV is largely pointless these days.

AHAHAHA! No. iTunes is currently lossy only, lossless download sites tend to be something of a genre thing, typically classical and jazz, although a recent development has seen individual bands start to offer new releases in FLAC or other lossless formats direct from their websites (ie Muse, My Bloody Valentine to name two recent ones). Otherwise sites tend to be related to high-end audio manufacturers, Linn, for example have their own label. Google is your friend.

Well, you can but there isn't any point, downloaded iTunes files are lossy, as mentioned, so there's no point converting them to lossless formats, you can't get the lost data back and you'll just be using more space. If you've ripped CDs in iTunes to ALAC or AIFF (Apple's lossless formats) then yes you can convert them to other lossless formats easily enough. Do you actually have any Apple gear? If not, do yourself a favour now and stay away from iTunes.

I avoid anything with an i- prefix like the plague.

As my American friends say, you can't chrome a t*rd, but you can dip it in sprinkles (hundreds and thousands in English English).

And that's how I regard anything with an i- prefix - a t*rd dipped in sprinkles.

I download from itunes rarely but they have a built in facility to convert to MP3 (which is not that bad; you wont hear the difference most of the time, if ever - try a comparison some time).

Is that because the two formats are equally as bad or because their converter/conversion is of the "no more losses" variety?

It's because, imo, MP3 isn't all that much (if at all) different in sound to lossless.

I've had some excellent results with purchased/downloaded MP3s, but ripping them myself has brought no joy whatsoever. It could be the latest version of LAME perhaps - it currently seems to roll off the high frequencies.

For lossless/uncompressed I am firmly in the camp - and I stress I am in no way alone in this, at least on other forums besides WHF - that believes pure uncompressed WAV sounds best. And I use the free EAC to rip them - its rips are a bit slow but the resulting quality is well worth it. And to prove I'm not a raving lunatic, Peter Bartlett from Cyrus also believes in WAVs.

Yes, WAVs are wholly inconvenient in that tagging is not supported, but a good streaming system i.e. streamer/NAS/media server will still serve up album art.

At the end I can live with it because ultimately I want to be moved by the music.

Also, none of us have the same audio taste, nevermind in music, so as always experiment and make up your own mind.

"If you've ripped CDs in iTunes to ALAC or AIFF (Apple's lossless formats) then yes you can convert them to other lossless formats easily enough."

For those of us that do use i-turds - found that quite funny actually.

Can someone enlighten me further and tell me the differences or benefits of ALAC as oppossed to AIFF.

I think I rip everything to ALAC if I remember, will check in a bit. 

AIFF is Apple's uncompressed equivalent to WAV, and is actually quite widely supported by streamers etc. It also supports tagging/album art like FLAC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_file_format

That link will tell you all you need to know about the files except at what point audio quality is compromised.

Try for yourself. I think that you will be suprised at how much compression is possible without hearing any degradation in quality.

Once you have determined a file type and size the offers no compromise in quality then there are a few genuine reasons for choosing file types over others and they are file size, support for tagging and player compatibility.

For archiving, I would recomend a lossless compression or uncompressed files if you have the space. No difference in sound quality, hence 'lossless'.

For general playback, I'd use the most compression that gives you no quality degradation. I have found 256Kbps VBR mp3s and 192 Kbps VBR AAC files to do the job nicely, but I have the option of playing back from a lossless archive, which in my case, is just as convenient.

If you have no problem with hard disc space and you want 'WAV like' rips but with album tags etc then AIFF is good. I can't understand why any music should be compressed today when ~900 albums could fit on a £50 500GB hard disc.

mp3 is pretty much a hangover from not so long ago, when broadband didn't exist and most people had dial-up modems. And hard disks were much, much smaller.

Now, with fast internet and terabytes for pocket money, the old compressed formats are slowly (but surely) being usurped by lossless: it is, however, going to take some time yet, probably due to those who aren't particularly interested in absolute sound quality still downloading mp3s by the skipload...