Transcoding lossy formats
Ask iLounge offers readers the opportunity to get answers to their iPod-, iPhone-, iPad-, iTunes-, or Apple TV-related questions from a member of the iLounge editorial team. We'll answer several questions here each week, and of course, you can always get help with more immediate concerns from the iLounge Discussion Forums. Submit your questions for consideration using our Ask iLounge Submit Form. We reserve the right to edit questions for grammar, spelling, and length.
Q: When I convert my AAC songs on iTunes (from my original CDs) into MP3, is the result the same as if I had imported the original CD into MP3 format in the first place?
A: The process of converting digital audio files between formats or bit-rates is referred to as transcoding, and this term applies regardless of whether you are converting between two different formats (ie, MP3 and AAC), or simply converting to a different bit-rate in the same format (ie, 192kbps MP3 to 128kbps MP3).
In this case, it is also important to note that we are talking about “lossy” formats. This means that the encoder actually removes audio information from the track in order to produce the resulting compressed MP3 or AAC audio file. This is normally information representing audio frequencies and harmonics that most people cannot hear anyway, although the loss of audible quality will increase dramatically at lower bit-rates.
Transcoding between lossy formats is generally considered a bad idea in terms of quality, since the results will not be the same as if you had re-ripped the track from the original CD.
This may run contrary to what some people expect, since with digital audio the encoding should be a consistent process being run by a computer. If you rip the same audio CD to the same bit-rate with the same encoder, you will always get the same results. The encoder doesn’t make subjective or random decisions when encoding audio—it simply follows a pre-defined algorithm.
There are two problems with transcoding that will result in reduced quality, however:
The first issue has to do with the fact that different encoders will make different decisions about what audio data gets “thrown out” when performing the compression (remember that lossy encoders actually discard audio data). Since the differing encoders use different algorithms, when you transcode between two lossy formats, you are actually getting the worst of both encoders. In other words, you may find that the AAC encoder has discarded audio information that the MP3 encoder would not have. Unfortunately, once that information has been discarded by the AAC encoder, there’s no way for the MP3 encoder to get it back without going back to the original CD. In practical application, these differences should be relatively subtle, but they do make a difference, particularly at lower bit-rates.
The second issue has to do with something called “artifacting.” No lossy encoder produces a perfect sound, and in the compression process, audio “artifacts” are generally introduced. These are imperfections in sound quality—effectively sounds and frequencies that were not present in the original recording. In essence, the compression process is actually adding (or at least distorting) sound.
Even if this compressed file is returned to an original WAV file (ie, burned to a CD), these artifacts will remain part of the audio. A reanalysis of the audio, whether from a burned CD or through transcoding, is going to pick up these artifacts. This will skew the reanalysis of the file in question, thereby producing a different result.
While the first issue will not affect transcoding between bit-rates with the same encoder, this second issue affects all types of transcoding between lossy formats.
In reality, the quality loss is not directly cumulative, however, nor is it as dramatic as some would suggest. There is a lot of misinformation regarding transcoding, and some will try to suggest that if a 192kbps AAC file contains 50% of the audio quality of the original CD, then a transcode to 192kbps MP3 would produce a file that is only 25% of the original quality (50% of 50%). This is not accurate, however, as there is a high degree of overlap between the information that the various lossy encoders will discard. In fact, it is not really possible to put a specific measurement on the quality loss, but it is not as high as the percentages that some often quote.
Therefore, while there is a theoretical loss in quality, it may not be perceptible, depending upon the bit-rates that you are encoding from and to, the encoders themselves, and your own ears and listening equipment. Audio quality is highly subjective, and we recommend that users conduct their own listening tests to determine what formats and methods work best for their own preferences. The best way to do this would be to take a track that you already have in your iTunes library in AAC format and convert it to MP3. Then, rip that same track from the CD directly to MP3 format. Give them both the same name and other track information, and then listen to them in whatever your typical listening conditions would be, without knowing which one is which, and see if you can hear a difference. This may not be as sophisticated a method as the “blind ABX tests” that you may have heard of, but is usually sufficient for most people.
Note that none of this applies to the available “lossless” formats, such as Apple Lossless. As the name implies a “Lossless” format does not discard any information during compression. As a result, converting from a lossless format to a lossy format will always produce the same results as ripping from the original CD. In fact, many audio enthusiasts maintain a library of their CDs in a lossless format such as Apple Lossless or FLAC in order to provide a base library for future conversion without having to go through the work of re-ripping individual CDs. Lossless files, although somewhat compressed, do take up a great deal more space than even MP3 or AAC files at the highest bit-rates.
There is one other point about converting as opposed to re-ripping that is worth mentioning: If you are planning to use the resulting converted tracks in your iTunes library, there is an additional advantage to re-ripping the audio tracks instead of converting them. iTunes will offer to replace existing tracks when you re-import from CD, which means ratings, playcounts, and entries in playlists are preserved. When converting through iTunes, however, it creates a new copy of the track in your iTunes library. This means that you will have to manually find and delete the old tracks after the conversion, and that you will lose any playlist entries or ratings and play counts pertaining to those tracks.
- Will removing a credit card from Safari also remove it from Apple Pay?
- Can I mute Handoff calls coming into my Mac from my iPhone?
- How do I keep my iPhone calls from ringing on my Mac?
- Why doesn’t Traffic show up on my Today Notifications Screen?
- Why doesn’t my iPhone reconnect to Wi-Fi after I turn it on?
- Why can’t I see the iPad-style landscape view on my iPhone 6 Plus?
- WSJ: Apple ‘in talks’ to acquire Tidal
- Spotify claims Apple anti-competitively blocking Spotify app update
- Sen. Elizabeth Warren accuses Apple, others, of locking out competition
- Cirrus Logic releases development kit for Lightning headphones
- Report details Apple Music’s vision for exclusive content
- Walgreens adds digital coupons to Apple Pay
- China orders Apple and others to monitor, report on app users
- South Korea regulators investigating Apple
- Apple Q3 earnings call set for July 26
- Apple’s UK tax bill under scrutiny
- IK Multimedia iKlip A/V
- ClamCase ClamCase+ for iPad Air 2
- Philips Hue White Ambience Starter Kit
- Naim Audio Mu-so Qb Speaker
- Phiaton BT 460 Wireless Bluetooth Headphones
- Zagg Slim Book for 9.7” iPad Pro
- Element Case Ronin for iPhone 6/6s
- JBL Clip 2 Wireless Bluetooth Speaker
- Audio-Technica ATH-SR5BT Wireless On-Ear Headphones
- Catalyst Case for iPad mini 4
- Inside the betas: iOS 10 Photos gets Advanced Computer Vision
- Inside the betas: iOS 10 Music app delivers ‘clarity and simplicity’
- Inside the betas: iOS 10 Maps gets a major redesign
- Inside the betas: iOS 10 shakes up the user experience
- Inside the betas: watchOS 3 promises a real speed boost
- Inside the betas: A sneak peek at what’s new in tvOS 10
- Filling the Gap: A look at third-party HomeKit apps
- Instant Expert: Secrets & Features of tvOS 9.2
- Instant Expert: Secrets & Features of iOS 9.3
- Opinion: Why Apple needs a dedicated HomeKit app