Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › AAC 320kbps vs. Lossless?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AAC 320kbps vs. Lossless? - Page 2

post #16 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossmd View Post
This I'm really curious about. Most of my FLAC rips come out to at least 900+.

Lastly, it depends largely on a given track. Was it brickwalled in the studio? How well did you rip it? Was it verified? How good are your ears? There are a myriad of variables at hand beyond what's had here.

I got it right, but I really dislike just that one example that goes up on that site.
Yeah, my bad, sorry. I'll edit it, actually wav is fixed to 1411 if i recall well. I have quite a lot of stuff in flac around 700-800kbps, or less. It mostly depends on the db range they're covering. But i guess that a lossy codec either considers this, so I meant that if a track is neither too loud nor so full of informations, with 400kbs lossy encoding your have very little loss of information.

marco
post #17 of 40
MP3s I can tell up up to 256kbps CBR. I have the best luck with oggs. I encode all of my cds into -q6 Ogg files (which gives about an average 192kbps ogg stream... ogg is only VBR). I can't tell the difference between that and the CD. Even -q4 (128kbps VBR oggs) it's very difficult to tell, but possible on some songs so I use q6.

I don't use AAC... too proprietary for me.
post #18 of 40
It should not matter if other hear and audible difference or not.
Cause in the end only you can tell what is transparent to your ears on your headphone rig.

Since you can not hear and audible difference then 320kbps AAC probably is enough. Unless you want to go lossless for the sake of mind though...
post #19 of 40
Thread Starter 
I think I'm going to go 256kbps VBR. More efficient files for the same audio quality as 320kbps CBR...
post #20 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by phototristan View Post
More efficient files for the same audio quality as 320kbps CBR...
Well..sort of. But yeah, go with whatever you can hear and makes you happy.
post #21 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by krmathis View Post
It should not matter if other hear and audible difference or not.
Cause in the end only you can tell what is transparent to your ears on your headphone rig.

Since you can not hear and audible difference then 320kbps AAC probably is enough. Unless you want to go lossless for the sake of mind though...
without the sake of mind this forum would be empty
post #22 of 40
i will tell you that i hear the difference between aac 520 vbr and wav on the ipod clasic, but i know some mates that don't
post #23 of 40
AAC is quite different from MP3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phototristan View Post
This is fun:

Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test! | NoiseAddicts music and audio blog

Although it's for mp3 and not AAC, I absolutely got it right and could tell which music clip was the 320kbps one. And this wasn't even using headphones, just a good speaker setup connected to my computer.

Can you tell a difference?

I can see how a lot of people may not be able to tell a difference though I certainly can.
post #24 of 40
99% of the time I can't tell them difference between lossless and 320kb/s. However, once in a while I've noticed some very minor distortion in high notes in places where many instruments are playing. Everytime I've noticed this, the file has always been in 320 mp3 format rather than flac. And, everytime I've noticed it, I've gone out and found a lossless version of the same song, and it has always fixed the problem.

so... for the most part I don't think there is any difference, but hearing that 1-2 seconds of small static can really break the mood if you tend to get into your music. Unless u have a need to save space, I would always go lossless just to be safe
post #25 of 40
With portable rig, I doubt 320kb vs. lossless really matters.

However, are you going to be using your portable gear forever? and never on other rig/systems? If you end up buying high end dac/amp, or stereo system, then any bits could be better served. You would have to re-rip in the future especially when the cost of HDD is quite cheap these days.
post #26 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by phototristan View Post
This is fun:

Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test! | NoiseAddicts music and audio blog

Although it's for mp3 and not AAC, I absolutely got it right and could tell which music clip was the 320kbps one. And this wasn't even using headphones, just a good speaker setup connected to my computer.

Can you tell a difference?

I can see how a lot of people may not be able to tell a difference though I certainly can.
I just did this test with my Shure 530s and my iBasso D10 hooked up to my MacBook Pro. I got it right
post #27 of 40
Not all that relevant to the questions you asked in the OP though.
1. MP3 files, and not AAC (or Lossless). As you so correctly stated as well.
2. It ask which one you think sound better, not which one is more transparent. Leading to #3.
3. You only compare one lossy file (128kbps) vs. another lossy file (320kbps). Without the lossless file as comparison.

For all we know they are both far from transparent to their source. In addition MP3 and AAC do not perform equally, hence one may be transparent at a set bitrate while the other may not.


To my ears I bet 320kbps AAC is transparent 95%+ of the time. The are the remaining 5% that nag me, never knowing when/where I miss out a tone.
post #28 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by phototristan View Post
I'm wondering if anyone has heard a difference between AAC 320kbps and Lossless files? Because I cannot hear a difference and am thinking about ripping my CDs as AAC 320kbps (still keeping the CDs for backup) because the files are 1/3 of the size as lossless.
If you can't hear a difference, there's no difference.
post #29 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drubbing View Post
If you can't hear a difference, there's no difference.
...until you buy a better Hi-Fi. Really there's not much point in promoting lossy for desktop computer, unless you have a MASSIVE library where it'll take something like 4+ high capacity hard drives to store your music in lossless, you should go lossless.
post #30 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by phototristan View Post
I'm wondering if anyone has heard a difference between AAC 320kbps and Lossless files? Because I cannot hear a difference and am thinking about ripping my CDs as AAC 320kbps (still keeping the CDs for backup) because the files are 1/3 of the size as lossless.

Also, is AAC 320kbps better or AAC 256kbps VBR better? In iTunes, there is not a 320kbps VBR option.
You answered your own question.

256kbps VBR sounds good to me (pun not intended).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › AAC 320kbps vs. Lossless?