What bit rate?
I've just become the proud owner of an iPod shuffle, woo hoo!!
I'm hoping that someone out there can help me.
I ripped some of my CDs' into iTunes using 128kbps AAC then transferred them to my iPod. While the sound was good, I felt that there was something missing.
I could work it out by trial and error but guessing that some of you have already done so, and given that it will somewhat be personal preference, what is the best bit rate to use so that the sound quality is acceptable. I don't mind sacrificing some play time for better quality. Say 6 hours of music rather than 8.
What is the comparison between the bit rates? Is it proportional, such that if I use 256kbps AAC then I'll get half the play time (twice the file size) as 128kbps?
Is AAC the best choice, or is MP3 better?
At the other end, how low can you go before it sounds rubbish?
TIA,
Berthos.
I'm hoping that someone out there can help me.
I ripped some of my CDs' into iTunes using 128kbps AAC then transferred them to my iPod. While the sound was good, I felt that there was something missing.
I could work it out by trial and error but guessing that some of you have already done so, and given that it will somewhat be personal preference, what is the best bit rate to use so that the sound quality is acceptable. I don't mind sacrificing some play time for better quality. Say 6 hours of music rather than 8.
What is the comparison between the bit rates? Is it proportional, such that if I use 256kbps AAC then I'll get half the play time (twice the file size) as 128kbps?
Is AAC the best choice, or is MP3 better?
At the other end, how low can you go before it sounds rubbish?
TIA,
Berthos.
Comments
Originally posted by Berthos
Is AAC the best choice, or is MP3 better?
As other people will tell you, you pretty much have to try out different bit rates and formats and decide for yourself.
You also have to ask yourself "better for what?". In listening tests I've read about AAC has generally ranked higher in perceived quality at the same bit rate -- YMMV. If "better" means "more compatible", however, then MP3 might be the way for you to go. If you can spare the extra storage space, high bit rate MP3 encoding might give you something that sounds just as good to you as AAC, but which can be played back on a wider variety of platforms.
I'm personally pretty happy with 192 kbps AAC when I encode music from my own CDs, and the 128 kbps stuff from iTMS is satisfying enough that I've bought quite a pile of it despite the fact that I wish it was available at a higher bit rate.
By the way, the LAME MP3 encoder is generally regarded as a higher-quality MP3 encoder than the encoder built into iTunes, but it would take you some extra effort to use LAME over what's easiest to do with iTunes and your new iPod.
So as far as the mpeg group or whatever is concerned, aac is generally superior for quality.
I will go 256 AAC for classical music or stuff that I love (Led Zep) and stuff where every distinct note is important
I'll probably switch over to the new 160-182kbps VBR setting in iTunes 4.8, though
Originally posted by Sopphode
192kbps AAC & Lossless for some difficult to encode music.
I'll probably switch over to the new 160-182kbps VBR setting in iTunes 4.8, though
Thanks all for your comments. iPod Shuffle doesn't support Apple Lossless it seems.
I'll try 192kbps for a while and see how it goes.
Cheers,
Berthos.
I'd rather wait 3 years for the next next generation codec.
I'm still ripping CDs I had ripped 3-4 years ago in MP3.
*sigh*
i was ripping Darude's "Sandstorm" into different bit-rates. And the only real difference is the backwards symbols samples (which sound washed out @ 64kbps) and the fast little drum beats in the background dont sound as crisp.
Can anyone else recomend a particular song (which i may have on CD - i own plenty of dance tunes and old-skool hip hop + some rock) that i should try in different bit-rates?
Just my £0.02-Oh-Great-Brown-Can-Bugger-Up-The-Economy-Again
However, for use mainly with iPod I would recommend 192kbps AAC as the best compromise between sound quality, size and ripping speed. Just don't go 128 - someday you might regret (160 might do if you only use the ipod with the white earbuds from Apple, but if you ever want to hook it up to a stereo or use better headphones, 192 (or higher) is the way to go))
And 128 sounds like CD quality to me. Im gonna go and compare them right now.
Originally posted by spiers69
you know it's funny you should say that. As i never use those tinny white headphones. i use proper one that cover the ears and i connect my iPod to my stereo daily (it's all i use to play music now).
And 128 sounds like CD quality to me. Im gonna go and compare them right now.
There are many factors to consider. One of them is the genre of music, which greatly influences the way you listen to - and experience the music. Darude's "Sandstorm" for example is not meant to be listened to the same way as, say, a classical music piece or complex rock or electronica etc. (and please don't take this as an attempt to belittle your taste in music in any way, it's not! I'm just stating simple facts: all music is different). Most dance and hiphop is not very critical when it comes to sound quality as it has been mixed and mastered to playback on shitty equipment - like small radios - with decent results. It will of course sound better with higehr bitrates but the difference will be less significant and it will not be as annoying at low bitrates like other kinds of music (eg. rock).
Furthermore, every person has different priorities and taste. I just recommend 192kbps AAC as a good all-around compromise, as even classical music will sound "good" at that rate.
(though anyone ripping in 64kbps should be arrested, sentenced and go to prison for at least 3 years )
Now, Fatboy Slim, he really tickles my pickle. Man, he's great.
I might see if i can dig up some classical music sometime, and do another comparison.
for jazz, world, electronica, etc. - 160 or 192 is clearly better.
Using AKG K240 headphones from my PB, there was a distinct difference between the AAC and the MP3, but it was hard to tell the difference between the AAC and the AIFF. That leads me to believe it's the limitation of the converter. Maybe I'll try it again now that I have an Mbox.