I'm sure both sound great but I hear AAC is better, blah blah blah. So, when encoding MP3s at 128 kbps and AACs at 128 kbps which produces smaller files?
I just want to maximize iPod space, that's all. Thanks.
I'm sure both sound great but I hear AAC is better, blah blah blah. So, when encoding MP3s at 128 kbps and AACs at 128 kbps which produces smaller files?
I just want to maximize iPod space, that's all. Thanks.
Which is heavier? A pound of feathers or a pound of bricks?
Which is heavier? A pound of feathers or a pound of bricks?
They're both as heavy. I was sort of looking for a more elaborate answer tho.
Now back to computers and audio files, can anyone tell me if one format yields more compressed files than the other? I don't understand where the difference lies between the two and if they both weight the same as Eugene's feathers and bricks, what's the advantage of encoding in AAC (if there's any)?
While Eugene's esoteric answer is essentially correct, they are slightly different.
I have quite a bit of music, encoded at either 192 kbps mp3 or 192 kbps AAC, so using iTunes smart playlists, we can do an easy comparison.
I have 5.160 days worth of 192 kbps AAC music, that takes up 10.08 Gigs of space.
So that's: .5119 Days per Gig
I also have 13.55 days worth of kbps mp3s, taking up 26.31 Gigs.
So that is: .5151 Days per Gig.
So, with these results of my very non-scientific study, you can see that you'll be able to eek out .0032 days more per gig when you encode at 192 kbps with AAC over 192kbps mp3. That's almost 5 more minutes more per gig! That means, if you have the gigantic 30 Gig iPod, you'd get an extra 2.3 hours playtime.
Boy, no wonder Apple is pushing AAC.
Seriously, though, the bit rate is exactly that... how many bits per second a file takes up. So, there shouldn't be any difference. The reason there is a slight difference is because AAC, unlike mp3, is slightly variable... it won't record the full bit rate for dead silence, because it really doesn't need that much data for dead air.
Edit: Boy, did it really take me 20 minutes to write this post? I guess I got waylaid. Anyways, I just saw your post, monkeyastronaut. The advantage of AAC is not the extra 4.6 minutes per gig, like I sarcastically state above. The advantage is in sound quality. AAC is able to reproduce sounds more accurately with less data, so a 128 kbps AAC file is roughly equivalent to a 192 kbps mp3. There's your advantage.
While Eugene's esoteric answer is essentially correct, they are slightly different.
A host of factors affects the size discrepancy. MPEG-4 files might have more header vomit. Additional track info in the MPEG-4 properties or ID3 tags will add a few bytes as well. Idiosyncratic encoder behavior will also *barely* effect file sizes too.
You should be sent to the brig for trying to justify the difference!
Comments
Originally posted by monkeyastronaut
I'm sure both sound great but I hear AAC is better, blah blah blah. So, when encoding MP3s at 128 kbps and AACs at 128 kbps which produces smaller files?
I just want to maximize iPod space, that's all. Thanks.
Which is heavier? A pound of feathers or a pound of bricks?
Originally posted by Eugene
Which is heavier? A pound of feathers or a pound of bricks?
They're both as heavy. I was sort of looking for a more elaborate answer tho.
Now back to computers and audio files, can anyone tell me if one format yields more compressed files than the other? I don't understand where the difference lies between the two and if they both weight the same as Eugene's feathers and bricks, what's the advantage of encoding in AAC (if there's any)?
Thanks.
I have quite a bit of music, encoded at either 192 kbps mp3 or 192 kbps AAC, so using iTunes smart playlists, we can do an easy comparison.
I have 5.160 days worth of 192 kbps AAC music, that takes up 10.08 Gigs of space.
So that's: .5119 Days per Gig
I also have 13.55 days worth of kbps mp3s, taking up 26.31 Gigs.
So that is: .5151 Days per Gig.
So, with these results of my very non-scientific study, you can see that you'll be able to eek out .0032 days more per gig when you encode at 192 kbps with AAC over 192kbps mp3. That's almost 5 more minutes more per gig! That means, if you have the gigantic 30 Gig iPod, you'd get an extra 2.3 hours playtime.
Boy, no wonder Apple is pushing AAC.
Seriously, though, the bit rate is exactly that... how many bits per second a file takes up. So, there shouldn't be any difference. The reason there is a slight difference is because AAC, unlike mp3, is slightly variable... it won't record the full bit rate for dead silence, because it really doesn't need that much data for dead air.
Edit: Boy, did it really take me 20 minutes to write this post? I guess I got waylaid. Anyways, I just saw your post, monkeyastronaut. The advantage of AAC is not the extra 4.6 minutes per gig, like I sarcastically state above. The advantage is in sound quality. AAC is able to reproduce sounds more accurately with less data, so a 128 kbps AAC file is roughly equivalent to a 192 kbps mp3. There's your advantage.
Originally posted by bauman
While Eugene's esoteric answer is essentially correct, they are slightly different.
A host of factors affects the size discrepancy. MPEG-4 files might have more header vomit. Additional track info in the MPEG-4 properties or ID3 tags will add a few bytes as well. Idiosyncratic encoder behavior will also *barely* effect file sizes too.
You should be sent to the brig for trying to justify the difference!
Originally posted by bauman
you'll be able to eek out .0032 days more per gig
"eke".
"Eek" is an expression of shock.
That was good enough for me. I'll do all my encoding on AAC now. This is what I love about these forums. Nice help and all that.
*gone to iTunes to encode my new CD*
Originally posted by Eugene
MPEG-4 files might have more header vomit. Additional track info in the MPEG-4 properties or ID3 tags will add a few bytes as well.
Presence/absence and size of artwork in the files (aac & mp3)...