Quoting pablolie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > bhaagensen;233589 Wrote: > > ... it does make sense to use flac (or any other loseless compression > > format). That is the only way you would be able to obtain the same > > quality as you started out with ... > > > > I would contend I do use the most widespread uncompressed format > around: I do burn the compressed file to a CD. *Then* I go turn this > into an MP3. > > I do understand your point though: the file on the CD is just an > upconverted version of the lossy I-Tunes files, with the same audio > characteristics as the I-tunes "original", and thus de facto a > compressed file, even though it now resides on a CD as a wav. But doing > extensive listening, I truly have not detected a degradation from that > Apple original (on the CD) from the end result as a 192k MP3. Obviously > I would expect to hear a difference, from both, compared to the audio > I'd get if I'd bought the CD. Would the 192k MP3 resulting from ripping > the CD sound different from the I-Tunes->CD->MP3 conversion path, > though? > > Anyone else would like to compare notes on this? I am just trying to > figuring out the most practical way to live with I-Tunes or any other > site that plagues us with clunky DRM implementations.
You can use something like QTFairUse to strip the DRM directly from the iTunes Store files, leaving them in the same state as you purchased them sans DRM. No conversion necessary. This is what I do. I've posted about this often with links, check the archives or Google QTFairUse. This DOES leave your userid information behind in the file - this should be of no concern to you as you do not intend to share them, as it is of no concern to me. dd _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
