I used to do 160 for MP3's, but recently started reripping at 128 AAC. I couldn't tell much difference in quality, but I could fit more music and get more battery life on my iPod.
When I really want quality I listen to the CD on the stereo. The AAC files are acceptable for portable use.
Apple's AAC encoder is VBR but it like forces it to avg out to that bitrate or something.
I'm not sure.... all I know is when I encode with something else and it says VBR and I import to iTunes it labels it 128
I don't know about VBR, but I do use Make Mine MP4--which lets you rip useing Quicktimes "Best" quality settings. It does make a noticable difference, and is part of the reason I settled on 128.
I really can't hear much differance between 128kbps ACC files and 160kbps mp3 flies, but i haven't made the jump over to ACC yet and the extra quality on my mp3s gives me piece of mind (even if i can't hear the differance)
I think i will switch over to ACC soon, most likely 160kbps or higher.
I used to encode with iTunes at 128 kbits, but I realized when listening through hifi equipment the quality wasn't that good. After some researching and many comparisons I have to say that I get by far the best results by using LAME and encoding using the standard setting which produces VBR files. The average bit rate is around 180 kbits, with some songs going as low as 145 and others as high as 215. The only drawback is that the encoding speed is quite slow compared to iTunes.
AAC 128bps and some 192 MP3/AAC. Realizing that 192bps was overkill, I've re-ripped all my AAC's into 128bps bitrate, but 1/3 of my library is still MP3.
Now what good would that be??? You'll LOSE quality, not gain it.
-> MP3 == lossy
-> AAC == lossy
-> MP3 -> AAC == lossy*lossy \
lossy compared to what wav, midi, shorten?
if you play loudly through nice speaker (which i'll admit must be done sometimes so i'll agree with you)
but for the most part the music on my computer is to be listened though my stereo at a nice volume as somethign in teh background not to take my concentration from what i'm reading or programming
i'm not saying ur wrong cuz then i'd be a liar but for most purposes its sufficient...and there are always those peopel taht can't tell too
Originally posted by ast3r3x (in regard to der Kopf's comments about lossiness when converting MP3 to AAC)
lossy compared to what wav, midi, shorten?
Lossy compared to the first compressed file you started with... regardless of the compressed formats involved. If you take audio in any lossy format, and convert it to another lossy format, you compound the signal distortion that's caused by lossy compression.
You can't improve and already-compressed audio file by converting into another format. At best, you break even -- MP3 -> AIFF, for example. Taking a 224Kbps MP3 file and converting it into a 224Kbps AAC file can only make it sound worse. The potential for 224K AAC to sound better than 224K MP3 will only be realized if you go back to the original uncompressed source before you create a new AAC file.
This is not to say their might not be practical reasons to convert between formats, or that a loss in quality caused by such a conversion can't be an acceptable trade-off in some situations. But you'd be missing the boat if you thought that converting to one format from another, without going back to original sources, would be a way to improve sound quality.
Lossy compared to the first compressed file you started with... regardless of the compressed formats involved. If you take audio in any lossy format, and convert it to another lossy format, you compound the signal distortion that's caused by lossy compression.
You can't improve and already-compressed audio file by converting into another format. At best, you break even -- MP3 -> AIFF, for example. Taking a 224Kbps MP3 file and converting it into a 224Kbps AAC file can only make it sound worse. The potential for 224K AAC to sound better than 224K MP3 will only be realized if you go back to the original uncompressed source before you create a new AAC file.
This is not to say their might not be practical reasons to convert between formats, or that a loss in quality caused by such a conversion can't be an acceptable trade-off in some situations. But you'd be missing the boat if you thought that converting to one format from another, without going back to original sources, would be a way to improve sound quality.
i was referring to his statement about AAC = lossy, not AAC*MP3
So what you guys are saying is don't waste my time converting MP3 to AAC?
Don't do it for reasons of sound quality unless you can go back to original CDs and re-rip from those. If you can't go back to the originals, you won't be doing yourself any sonic favors.
If you're tight on disk space, however, you might find the loss of sound quality acceptable (maybe even unnoticeable), if you convert your 224Kbps MP3's to smaller AAC files, say 192Kbps or less.
Comments
When I really want quality I listen to the CD on the stereo. The AAC files are acceptable for portable use.
Originally posted by Paul
i wish there was VBR AAC in iTunes...
there is, i think.
Apple's AAC encoder is VBR but it like forces it to avg out to that bitrate or something.
I'm not sure.... all I know is when I encode with something else and it says VBR and I import to iTunes it labels it 128
Originally posted by ast3r3x
haha to the wise asses who picked my last option...i have to know what do you call ur format?
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
Originally posted by applenut
there is, i think.
Apple's AAC encoder is VBR but it like forces it to avg out to that bitrate or something.
I'm not sure.... all I know is when I encode with something else and it says VBR and I import to iTunes it labels it 128
I don't know about VBR, but I do use Make Mine MP4--which lets you rip useing Quicktimes "Best" quality settings. It does make a noticable difference, and is part of the reason I settled on 128.
Originally posted by torifile
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
perhaps it would be worth it
I really can't hear much differance between 128kbps ACC files and 160kbps mp3 flies, but i haven't made the jump over to ACC yet and the extra quality on my mp3s gives me piece of mind (even if i can't hear the differance)
I think i will switch over to ACC soon, most likely 160kbps or higher.
Originally posted by Jacob Wootten
am in the process of converting my entire library into AAC from MP3
Now what good would that be??? You'll LOSE quality, not gain it.
-> MP3 == lossy
-> AAC == lossy
-> MP3 -> AAC == lossy*lossy
Originally posted by der Kopf
Now what good would that be??? You'll LOSE quality, not gain it.
-> MP3 == lossy
-> AAC == lossy
-> MP3 -> AAC == lossy*lossy
lossy compared to what wav, midi, shorten?
if you play loudly through nice speaker (which i'll admit must be done sometimes so i'll agree with you)
but for the most part the music on my computer is to be listened though my stereo at a nice volume as somethign in teh background not to take my concentration from what i'm reading or programming
i'm not saying ur wrong cuz then i'd be a liar but for most purposes its sufficient...and there are always those peopel taht can't tell too
Originally posted by ast3r3x (in regard to der Kopf's comments about lossiness when converting MP3 to AAC)
lossy compared to what wav, midi, shorten?
Lossy compared to the first compressed file you started with... regardless of the compressed formats involved. If you take audio in any lossy format, and convert it to another lossy format, you compound the signal distortion that's caused by lossy compression.
You can't improve and already-compressed audio file by converting into another format. At best, you break even -- MP3 -> AIFF, for example. Taking a 224Kbps MP3 file and converting it into a 224Kbps AAC file can only make it sound worse. The potential for 224K AAC to sound better than 224K MP3 will only be realized if you go back to the original uncompressed source before you create a new AAC file.
This is not to say their might not be practical reasons to convert between formats, or that a loss in quality caused by such a conversion can't be an acceptable trade-off in some situations. But you'd be missing the boat if you thought that converting to one format from another, without going back to original sources, would be a way to improve sound quality.
Originally posted by shetline
Lossy compared to the first compressed file you started with... regardless of the compressed formats involved. If you take audio in any lossy format, and convert it to another lossy format, you compound the signal distortion that's caused by lossy compression.
You can't improve and already-compressed audio file by converting into another format. At best, you break even -- MP3 -> AIFF, for example. Taking a 224Kbps MP3 file and converting it into a 224Kbps AAC file can only make it sound worse. The potential for 224K AAC to sound better than 224K MP3 will only be realized if you go back to the original uncompressed source before you create a new AAC file.
This is not to say their might not be practical reasons to convert between formats, or that a loss in quality caused by such a conversion can't be an acceptable trade-off in some situations. But you'd be missing the boat if you thought that converting to one format from another, without going back to original sources, would be a way to improve sound quality.
i was referring to his statement about AAC = lossy, not AAC*MP3
Originally posted by Jacob Wootten
So what you guys are saying is don't waste my time converting MP3 to AAC?
Don't do it for reasons of sound quality unless you can go back to original CDs and re-rip from those. If you can't go back to the originals, you won't be doing yourself any sonic favors.
If you're tight on disk space, however, you might find the loss of sound quality acceptable (maybe even unnoticeable), if you convert your 224Kbps MP3's to smaller AAC files, say 192Kbps or less.