iPod - MP3 vs. AAC - Which is Best?

Jump to First Reply
dr_holisticdr_holistic
Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
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.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 32
    cubedudecubedude Posts: 1,556member
    I encode at 320k AAC. I've got nothing better to do with the drive space.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 32
    dog almightydog almighty Posts: 464member
    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?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 32
    dog almightydog almighty Posts: 464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by CubeDude

    I encode at 320k AAC. I've got nothing better to do with the drive space.



    Hoochimama.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 32
    cubedudecubedude Posts: 1,556member
    Quote:

    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 32
    imacfanimacfan Posts: 444member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by CubeDude

    I don't think so. I know that Linux PDA's can run an Ogg Vorbis player.



    Linux PDAs?!?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 32
    cubedudecubedude Posts: 1,556member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by iMacfan

    Linux PDAs?!?



    http://www.yopy.com/
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 32
    dr_holisticdr_holistic Posts: 114member
    So does anyone know which compression format is superior?



    MP3 or AAC



    And Why?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 32
    gsxrboygsxrboy Posts: 565member
    AAC 192k for me, gotta fill up that 30 gigger somehow
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 32
    ryaxnbryaxnb Posts: 583member
    Quote:

    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 32
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    Quote:

    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 32
    dog almightydog almighty Posts: 464member
    Holy shit. O_O



    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 32
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Quote:

    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...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 14 of 32
    dog almightydog almighty Posts: 464member
    Quote:

    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?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 15 of 32
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    When iTunes 4 first came out, I did some comparisons between audio formats and checked for generative degradation. I found that the AAC format was better than the MP3 format. (Duh!) I used to encode as 160 kbit MP3 and now stick to 160 AAC.



    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 16 of 32
    wjmoorewjmoore Posts: 210member
    Quote:

    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 17 of 32
    dr_holisticdr_holistic Posts: 114member
    How about HI-FI music... when you really want it to be clear in multichannel? I know AAC is suppose to support multichannel, but when you listen to the back speakers which sounds clearer? MP3 or AAC.





    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?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 18 of 32
    vitaflovitaflo Posts: 35member
    AAC is definitely better than MP3, but I can't listen to either at less than 192kbs. It just sounds like crap otherwise.



    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 19 of 32
    dr_holisticdr_holistic Posts: 114member
    Does anyone know if the Apple Music Store will ever allow you to choose what compression rate you want?



    I personally would like to be able to download AIFF and then compress or at least get 160 or 192 kbps.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 20 of 32
    shatteringglassshatteringglass Posts: 176member
    AAC doesn't support DRM, so Apple won't allow you to download songs in that format.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.