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

AAC 320kbps vs. Lossless? - Page 3

post #31 of 45
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.
mp3 is actually mp1, layer 3. AAC is mp4. They are not comparable.

P
post #32 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by iriverdude View Post
...until you buy a better Hi-Fi.
THe same point holds true, no matter how good or expensive the gear - if you, the listener, can't hear a difference, then there isn't one.

Besides, the better I've gone with my gear, the difference has been heard at the recording level, bit rate hasn't entered into it. So a 320 of a poor recording sounds worse to me than a 192 of a good one. I've even had well ripped 128 that I can't tell from 320.
post #33 of 45
Thread Starter 
So I heard that Apple lossless is actually just an AAC file that is about 800kbps.

To me, it seems there is really diminishing returns above AAC 320kbps. Sure, someone may be able to tell a difference on a really good system, etc. But is the tiny difference actually worth three times the file size?
post #34 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by phototristan View Post
So I heard that Apple lossless is actually just an AAC file that is about 800kbps.
Whoever told you that do not seem to know what he/she talk about.
Apart from the fact that they both use the MP4 container, Apple Lossless have more in common with FLAC than AAC.
It is a lossless audio codec using linear prediction. While AAC is a lossy codec using a psychoacoustic model to throw away audio data.

Since AAC is lossy you can set the targeted bitrate, and the encoder will throw away audio data to match the target as close as possible.
For Apple Lossless you have no such options. The encoder will compress the audio data as tight as the algorithm allow, resulting in files with a bitrate anywhere between 1kbps and 1411kbps (for audio CD). Although the average may be around 800kbps

Quote:
To me, it seems there is really diminishing returns above AAC 320kbps. Sure, someone may be able to tell a difference on a really good system, etc. But is the tiny difference actually worth three times the file size?
Indeed!
The difference in sound quality is not major, so definitely talking diminishing returns. If the last bit of information is important, or even audible, to you is not for me to tell.
post #35 of 45
Thread Starter 
Okay so I'm going lossless on my computer and AAC on my iPhone. 1 TB drives are under $100. now so it seems to make sense since storage space is only really an issue on the portable.
post #36 of 45
Well whatever floats your boat. . .

Lossless is really pointless on a portable device. . . especially on any portable thing-a-ma-bob made by apple. In addition to taking up all your memory your battery life will suffer.

Not that I can't tell the difference. I've ABX'd 320 CBR mp3's encoded by LAME in the past, it just isn't worth it.

I plan to buy myself a good portable set up in the near future, amped expensive headphones and all, but I still won't use lossless. Just really high bit rate lossy.

EDIT: oh sorry, misread you there.
post #37 of 45
Thread Starter 
That said though, does battery life really suffer that much when playing lossless on a portable vs. high bitrate AACs or MP3s?
post #38 of 45
Thread Starter 
Reading back through this tread..

This seems like a good idea if you don't want to maintain two files for each song (which really seems like a PIA)... Just keep new and favorite albums as lossless and then convert them to AAC after you are not listening to them as much, etc. and sync everything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkswordsman17 View Post
You also might think about keeping your favorite music in lossless and others in lossy on the portable.
post #39 of 45

It all depends upon the volume you wanna listen.

Then it makes a difference.

post #40 of 45

think I can hear a difference; but to be honest, I haven't done a blind test to see.  I usually go with FDK-AAC at the highest quality setting, or I use MP3 LAME V0 which is good enough most of the time.  All of my backups are lossless stored across redundant drives.


Edited by hogger129 - 10/10/15 at 2:06pm
post #41 of 45

Has anyone done any serious comparisons between ogg(sse3) at q.8 or so vs aac vbr fdk?

post #42 of 45
Quote:

But then I'd have to store the iPhone/iPod converted files in addition to the lossless, taking up even more space on my hard drive.

 

Not really.

Most media players do support transcoding.

You have your library in a lossless format.

While syncing to a portable the audio is converted to a lossy format on the fly

post #43 of 45

To update on my last post, I really like the FDK-AAC encoder at -Q5 on my portables.  It sounds really good compared with the iTunes AAC VBR encoder, and it seems to be more efficient too.  


Edited by hogger129 - 10/13/15 at 11:23pm
post #44 of 45

better than itunes vbr? how so? I find itunes vbr 320 to be transparent

post #45 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by donunus View Post
 

better than itunes vbr? how so? I find itunes vbr 320 to be transparent

 

Well what I mean is it seems more efficient.  If I set the encoder to -Q5, I get bitrates anywhere from ~160kbps up to ~320kbps.  

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?