I'll fifth the 160 AAC -- re-ripped entire library into this. The difference from 128 AAC was surprisingly noticeable, especially with some classical albums.
I only listen to my ripped songs through earphones (when I want to do serious listening I use a CD player), so I did a lot of comparisons before ripping my collection and came to the conclusion that 128 kbps AAC was the way to go.
Interestingly, through earphones I can't tell the difference between it and the source, whilst anything below 192 in mp3 format sounds pretty horrible to me.
many threads say the same thing, i agree completely
aac 128. mp3 i won't use--lower quality higher storage requirements
Songs from the iTMS (128 AAC) sound just fine to me...
Doesn't the iTMS offer different Bit-Rates? Is everything at 128AAC? Do you think it would be a draw if they offered stuff at 192 for example, or would it just undermine the idea that AAC is good enuf at 128?
Doesn't the iTMS offer different Bit-Rates? Is everything at 128AAC? Do you think it would be a draw if they offered stuff at 192 for example, or would it just undermine the idea that AAC is good enuf at 128?
I believe it's 128 or nothing I think that they decided 128 was close enough that they didn't need to go higher. I don't know that any store offers multiple bit-rates as they would have to either store all the different bit-rate songs or have to encode them every time you want a different file version which would mean storing the wav or high quality aac on their servers still taking up space. I don't think that more then 90% of the people that listen to the songs will be able to tell the difference.
Although I'll tell you, I don't have a stereo that I can tell the difference with but I think that if I used Shure's E5 earbuds I might be able to tell the difference.
You don't really need anymore than that. The only reason I use 160kbps and not 128kbps is because I'm paranoid. I'll probably end upmoving to 128kbps soon though, on the ITMS its sounds perfectly fine.
Comments
Still reripping my library. Mainly because of space saving potential, without the loss of sound quality.
Originally posted by Mr. H
I only listen to my ripped songs through earphones (when I want to do serious listening I use a CD player), so I did a lot of comparisons before ripping my collection and came to the conclusion that 128 kbps AAC was the way to go.
Interestingly, through earphones I can't tell the difference between it and the source, whilst anything below 192 in mp3 format sounds pretty horrible to me.
many threads say the same thing, i agree completely
aac 128. mp3 i won't use--lower quality higher storage requirements
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM.
Songs from the iTMS (128 AAC) sound just fine to me, so I guess I should encode at that or 160, but I'm a paranoid
Originally posted by ast3r3x
Songs from the iTMS (128 AAC) sound just fine to me...
Doesn't the iTMS offer different Bit-Rates? Is everything at 128AAC? Do you think it would be a draw if they offered stuff at 192 for example, or would it just undermine the idea that AAC is good enuf at 128?
Originally posted by SonOfSylvanus
Doesn't the iTMS offer different Bit-Rates? Is everything at 128AAC? Do you think it would be a draw if they offered stuff at 192 for example, or would it just undermine the idea that AAC is good enuf at 128?
I believe it's 128 or nothing
Although I'll tell you, I don't have a stereo that I can tell the difference with but I think that if I used Shure's E5 earbuds I might be able to tell the difference.
You don't really need anymore than that. The only reason I use 160kbps and not 128kbps is because I'm paranoid. I'll probably end upmoving to 128kbps soon though, on the ITMS its sounds perfectly fine.