Apple Event: May 7th at 7 am PT
In an effort to save space on my my Mac, I noticed my music library of only 3600 songs was consuming 72 GB of space. I thought this was odd since my iPhone 6 (64 GB) contains all the same songs. I checked my iPhone 6 and those same 3600 songs consume less than 15 GB. Anyone have an idea why this occurs and how I can decrease the size of my iTunes library without removing any songs?
iMac, OS X Yosemite (10.10)
Larry McJunkin wrote:
Yes, all of them I've tried play just fine, and they're songs from CDs I've imported over the years. But when I try to create an ACC version, iTunes can't find the file. Using Yosemite and iTunes 12.
Larry,
That is evidently a bug in the Yosemite version. Normally, since iTunes needs to know the file location to play the song, it uses that location to find the file to convert.
I am using iTunes 12.0.1.26 on Windows, and the "Create XXX Version" is working fine.
I don't think it's a bug...Yosemite is finding the file just fine now. I had to reboot, however, for it to work. I think I've found the best of all worlds through a little research. Given I need to save some space and I'd also like excellent quality music (doesn't have to be perfect, as in Apple Lossless), it appears that ACC bitrate 320 kbps is just what I need. It ends up being from 25-30% of the .AIFF file size and I sure can't tell the difference, even with really good headphones.
"Apple Lossless" saves approximately half the space (it's cutting most file sizes in half) and it's touted to be much better quality than AAC. Do you agree?
I would have said "slightly" better, but that is very subjective. Per your follow-up post, AAC/320 should be a nice compromise.
320 kbps encoding yields a file about 2.5 MB per minute of music, which is a considerable savings over AIFF.
Agree, it's saving a LOT of file space per song. Seems like an average song of minutes in 320kbps = about 5-7MB, and I'm fine with that.
Larry McJunkin wrote:
Agree, it's saving a LOT of file space per song. Seems like an average song of minutes in 320kbps = about 5-7MB, and I'm fine with that.
Excellent. Enjoy the music! (And the space savings.)
Thanks! Actually, I discovered another useful trick for converting all the AIFF songs. I added "Bitrate" to the display fields and just selected everything that was 1411 kbps and when it finished converting, I simply deleted all the (still) highlighted 1411 kbps files.
Ed, just one more question. Now that I have all my imported CDs converted to 320 kbps AAC, why shouldn't I go ahead and take them down yet another notch to 256 kbps AAC? That's what all my iTunes purchased music is at...so wouldn't that also be good enough for my imported CDs?
It's really up to you. Frankly these days I can barely hear the difference between 128k mp3 and a higher bitrate. You will probably find the difference between 256k and 320k aac pretty much indistinguishable (probably the case for most people which is why Apple sells 256k). Try a couple of files of different types of music and see if it makes a difference you can hear. If not, go with lower.
Thanks, Limnos. I've already tried a couple and can't distinguish the difference. But what I'd like to know is if there is any actual difference between a song I've converted to "256 kbps (VBR)" and the same song if downloaded from iTunes and it just says "256 kbps" (missing the VBR)?
But what I'd like to know is if there is any actual difference between a song I've converted to "256 kbps (VBR)" and the same song if downloaded from iTunes and it just says "256 kbps" (missing the VBR)?
Larry,
Constant Bit Rate (CBR) and Variable Bit Rate (VBR) are different ways of allocating bits when the file is encoded. VBR was really invented to improve audio quality on 128 kbps files, and I doubt you will notice much if any difference at 256.
Thanks, Ed. I knew what the difference was...I just wondered if I would truly notice a difference. I'm now thinking I'll go back and convert everything I have at 320 kbps (VBR) down to 256 kbps (leaving off the VBR option when I convert them). I've tried this in a test and to my ears there is no difference. I'll wait until I see your reply before doing this.
Larry McJunkin wrote:
Thanks, Ed. I knew what the difference was.
As would befit, to use your term, a "retired geek." 🙂
.I just wondered if I would truly notice a difference. I'm now thinking I'll go back and convert everything I have at 320 kbps (VBR) down to 256 kbps (leaving off the VBR option when I convert them). I've tried this in a test and to my ears there is no difference. I'll wait until I see your reply before doing this.
Larry, 256 CBR and 256 VBR is a very fine difference and is somewhat subjective. The best path, as Limnos noted earlier, is to take a few example tracks, convert them both ways, and do a comparison with your own ears using your own equipment under your own typical listening conditions. Decide for yourself, and when you are comfortable, you can go ahead and do the thousands of tracks.
How to Save Disk Space in iTunes
