Can Anyone Please Walk Me Through This?

I don't think anyone is, or should, argue that mp3s are the equal of WAV files when it comes to quality. The point I would make is that some mp3s aren't equal to other mp3s when it comes to quality. Even my non-audiophile mother is going to be able to tell the difference between a WAV and 32 kbps CBR with the command line "-q 9 -m m". For a look at the command line options, see:

http://lame.sourceforge.net/doc/html/switchs.html

Face it, unless you wish to remain pure and stick with WAVs, you are going to get compromised audio. The *only* way of deciding what is appropriate for you--how much of a hit you are willing to take in terms of audio quality based upon the playback medium you are recording mp3s for--is to try some of the formats and see. This is totally a value judgment--am I willing to listen to -alt preset insane and get 20 albums only on my iPod, or -alt preset extreme and get 100, or -alt preset standard and get 500?

Edesilva, the reason why I'm advocating mp3s over wavs is because of the buffer size and battery life of the ipod. I have one, I've tried it and, unless you want to use it for more than one trip around the block, it will not work. For better or worse, the ipod is a player created for small files of compressed music. This is also why I'm advocating VBR over CBR. I'm furthermore advocating -alt preset standard over extreme or insane because, even the creator of the -alt preset settings admits that there is no audible sound difference between the three--simply file bloat. He admits to creating it for people who must feel like they have the best regardless of logic of reason (oddly enough, I believe that applies to 99% of the people on A'gon). Check out hydrogenaudio for more infomation.

The -alt preset standard generally produces file sizes that are roughly double that of 128 kbps CBR, but are still small enough to make the ipod's pathetic buffer size happy.

I'm not advocating mp3s as God's gift to music. I'm hoping (and I think) that this is a sad little chapter in music history. I think it's only a matter of a couple of years before we have our 1.8" 100GB Toshiba drives with 1GB of buffer and we can all happily use wav files (of course, you still can't tag and organize them...)

The point I am making though, is that most people's experience with 128kbps CBR mp3's shouldn't turn them off to enjoying good portable sound right now. Arm yourself with EAC, choose an -alt preset of somekind (ABX them first to make sure you're really happy) and enjoy the music.

Cwlondon,
I have been an audiophile and a DIYer since 1972. Over the years I have learn not to worry about hair splitting differences anymore. If my lady friend or I cannot consistently hear the difference, I would rather just enjoy the music and not worry about what was supposed to be better. Maybe you are right about the iPod’s internal amp and DAC limit, or maybe my old ears are just not sensitive enough anymore. But in either case, iPod playing MP3 encoded at 320kbs VBR sounded every bit as good as wav to me. That is why I encourage you to give it a try. If you can hear a difference, god blesses you. If you can’t, why waste the disk space?

Ultraviolet,
You can tag Apple Lossless. On average, it is about 50% smaller than wav and about 50% larger than 320bps MP3 VBR. If one really wants to be perfect, Apple Lossless is a good compromise. One down side is that you will be stuck with iTurn and iPod, nothing else can play that format.

OK - maybe we can simplify this for everyone:

1) MP3 algorithims have improved dramatically, but they are still compressed, digital files and let's face it: they ain't high end.

Their limitations and artifacts may be obscured by the signal chain, or be less relevant with certain types of music or lesser quality recordings, but otherwise should be audible to any self respecting audiophile -- even on a high end car stereo which is what led me to start this thread.

2) WAV files are probably a better audiophile solution, but you cannot easily "tag" them with track information. This, unfortunately, defeats one of the chief purposes of computer based audio -- convenience.

In addition, there are buffer issues when using WAV files which will rapidly drain battery life on portable devices and also cause audible skips in your music. Not to mention of course, that they take up massive amounts of hard drive space, which dramatically limits the amount of music one can store on their hard drive based device.

So in the end, portable devices including the iPod dont really "support" WAV files, any more than an all wheel drive Porsche 911 Carrera 4 "supports" driving on unpaved surfaces. OK, you can sort of drive off road, but not with the results that you wanted or were expecting.

3) Until this is all improved, Apple's proprietary "lossless" format may be the best solution, as it takes up less storage space than a WAV file and also can be easily "tagged" with track info, just like MP3 files.

It is unclear, however, how good Apple's format really sounds. And since it only works with Ipods, this is difficult to test.

It is likely,however, that this, too, may not be up to the high end standards of this forum for uncompromised playback through the best associated gear.

Do we all agree?

No we do not all agree. Not as a personal attack, but you seem overly rigid in your position, so much so that I question why you're even bothering with an iPod.

I agree that MP3 style compression is not high end audio, but I still argue that for certain types of music (modern pop/rock/country) the sonic losses are quite small. Also, it's not unreasonable to argue that due to their high background noise levels that any car system is not high end. If the car system can't be high end, then why quibble over whether the source is high end enough?

I use an Apple computer with my iPod and primarily use AIFF type files. AIFF is Apple's version of a WAV and it uses no compression whatsoever. iTunes automatically tags the files with album/song data and that info is easily transferred to the iPod. I have never experienced any buffer or skipping problems with my iPod and this includes the playback of several single songs that last more than an hour.

Regarding battery life -- yes, using uncompressed files will shorten usable battery life due to the greater use of the hard drive. I've read that the battery in 3 series iPod can sustain approximately 400 charge/discharge cycles. Obviously you're better off not letting your iPod fully discharge. At home you should always leave it plugged in. In a car you should use any of the readily available third party supplied lighter adapter chargers. There are also add on battery packs that claim to more than double the usable discharge time of the iPod. Worse comes to worse, Apple will replace dead batteries for $99 installed.

With a 30Gb iPod using AIFF files I typically achieve 5-6 hours battery life and can store 650 songs. When I really want to load up a lot of music I copy the selected files to AAC (192kbps, mono) and then can store nearly 4,000 songs on the iPod. Mono works for me since I would only listen in the car and stereo information just isn't important
to me in such an environment.

Your next to last paragraph perplexes me. By design an iPod is not a high end oriented device. It's a convenience, lifestyle oriented product. I know that there are some audiophile who use their iPods with expensive cables and there's probably somebody out there contemplating how they can cryo theirs, but I still maintain it's not being entirely realistic to hold the iPod up to high end standards. For what it is the iPod is a great product, but you have to accept it for what it is. If you require true high end sound quality in a digital portable playback system you might want to consider one of the various Nagra products.