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 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.
mp3 is actually mp1, layer 3. AAC is mp4. They are not comparable.

P
post #32 of 40
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 40
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 40
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 40
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 40
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 40
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 40
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 40

It all depends upon the volume you wanna listen.

Then it makes a difference.

post #40 of 40

I tried this test.  I can't hear a difference between 160 AAC and CD-quality lossless.  I actually could not hear a difference until I got down to 128 AAC.  I decided to go with 320 AAC.  It works on all my stuff and the file size is smaller than FLAC.  I'm using dBpoweramp's FDK AAC.  Not sure how it compares to Nero or Quicktime AAC, but it sounds good to my ears.  I'm pretty sure it's only CBR though past 96kbps.  Even on my big stereo in the basement, I'm pretty sure I'd have a hard time distinguishing 320 AAC from FLAC.  Of course 320 AAC is not the best possible sound I can get, but it feels like a good tradeoff between size and sound quality.  I suppose the difference between high bitrate lossy and lossless would be easier to hear with music that has much wider dynamic range as opposed to my collection which is nearly all classic rock.

 

 

Quote:
 

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.

 

This is where dBpoweramp's Multi-Encoder comes in handy.  Also, if you keep your music stored as Apple Lossless and listen with an iPod, iTunes can chop your lossless down to lossy versions, on the fly, while syncing.  It would be cool if foobar2000 could implement a feature like that for those of us who don't use iPods.  I like a lot of the ideas that iTunes has but I hate the program for being a memory hog.


Edited by hogger129 - 3/13/14 at 8:32pm
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?