iPod - MP3 vs. AAC - Which is Best?
Well for years I've been rippin my CD's to 160 kbps and they usually have good sound in the surround sound mode. I haven't tried ripping in AAC yet. I assume I'd stay at the 160 Kbps, just have improved quality.
But I was curious what everyone's preference what when they rip CD's. Do you use MP3 or AAC and what compression rate.
But I was curious what everyone's preference what when they rip CD's. Do you use MP3 or AAC and what compression rate.
Comments
Originally posted by CubeDude
I encode at 320k AAC. I've got nothing better to do with the drive space.
Hoochimama.
Originally posted by Dog Almighty
I have just compared and contrasted an AAC (128kBps) and an Ogg Vorbis (3.5 quality) file of the same song, and they are both indistiguishable when compared to the original AIFF file. How long has this Ogg Vorbis been around and why hasn't it caught on? Are there portable music players that can play in this format?
I don't think so. I know that Linux PDA's can run an Ogg Vorbis player.
Originally posted by CubeDude
I don't think so. I know that Linux PDA's can run an Ogg Vorbis player.
Linux PDAs?!?
Originally posted by iMacfan
Linux PDAs?!?
http://www.yopy.com/
MP3 or AAC
And Why?
Originally posted by Dr_Holistic
So does anyone know which compression format is superior?
MP3 or AAC
And Why?
AAC. Because:
*It's smaller at the same quality.
*It might be the future.
*Better decoding efficency
*Supports multichannel audio.
Originally posted by Dr_Holistic
Do you use MP3 or AAC and what compression rate.
AAC at 160 kbps. It has been my experience MP3 often come out a touch dull or dampened while AAC has never had that.
Ogg Vorbis at 0.1 quality compression: 1.5MB compared to a 2.8MB AAC at 128kB/s. And even at this rate of compression the degradation is VERY slight.
? too bad.
Originally posted by Dog Almighty
I have just compared and contrasted an AAC (128kBps) and an Ogg Vorbis (3.5 quality) file...how long has this Ogg Vorbis been around and why hasn't it caught on?
Obviously because of the freaky-ass, goofy name!
Sounds like something Captain Kirk might've gotten into a fistfight with...
Originally posted by pscates
Obviously because of the freaky-ass, goofy name!
Sounds like something Captain Kirk might've gotten into a fistfight with...
And blown up with gun powder in a wooden log! I love that episode?
? anyway. AAC at 80kB/s yields (seemingly) the same results as Ogg Vorbis at 0.1q. Still is pretty impressive.
If Apple is such a big supporter of open-source projects, why not support the Ogg?
Also, I burned some iTunes purchases and then ripped them as 160 and 192 AAC files and found that the quality loss was not noticeable.
I haven't tested out Ogg nor do I have an iPod.
To sum up, 160 AAC is good stuff. Too bad it doesn't work on my old Rio. I guess its time to buy that iPod.
Originally posted by bunge
Just like you I was using 160 kb MP3s until AAC happened. I now do 160 kb AACs and I'm happy. I haven't done any listening tests though, and usually use my iPod in areas that aren't perfect listening areas. But, I'm happy to fit a bit more in my cache.
A 160 kbs audio files takes up the same space no matter what the format. ie. 160,000 bits per second. To get a cache/space saving you have to use a lower bitrate and get around the same quality. Apple seems to think 128kbs AAC is equivalent enough to 160kbs MP3.
Also, why doesn't APPLE MUSIC STORE offer 160 kbps for the music. If I "switch" to rerecording all my music back to AAC, I'd really like to also download some from apple at 160kbps. Does anyone know if this will be a possibility?
This is why I'm having issues buying anything from the iTunes Music Store, as most of the previews I listen to just don't cut it at 128kbs, and really bug me. I wish they'd up the bitrate.
I personally would like to be able to download AIFF and then compress or at least get 160 or 192 kbps.