[eastsidemetalhd]

... just got a pretty good deal on a friend's used iMac, and am thinking of getting a DAP for the convenience. the 2 burning questions right now are:

1) are there any DAPs other than the iPod that will be compatible with the damn thing? the software for other players seem to be only PC-compatible...

2) how would AAC files compare size-wise with say, 128K MP3s? would there be a visible difference to justify the increase (if any) in file size?

i apologize if these are silly questions; am a total moron when it comes to computers (hell, i still use tapes hahaha). tks in advance, guys!

 

[EdipisReks]

aac is pretty comparable to MP3's at any given quality, but the AAC's sound better. 128 AAC sounds TONS better than 128 MP3. whether you should use higher bitrates, it's simply up to your ear. i find that 224 KBPS, in AAC and MP3, is around the area where i have a hard time distinguishing the files from CD's. in term of what DAP to get, most of the flash players are Mac compatible, but i don't know about the HD based ones. personally, i think getting an iPod for Mac users is a no brainer. the integration is fantastic.

 

[fr4c]

at the same audio quality, AAC is around half the size of MP3. and yeah, get a iPod.

 

[IstariAsuka]

I agree, if you have a mac you should probably just get an iPod.

However, any MSC DAP will work in Mac, such as various iRiver player, the Carbon, and some others.

 

[davidd]

iRiver's HD players work on macs, but I don't know if there are any database creator's for it on Mac's, you'll have to use file-tree mode if their isn't


acc and mp3 is prettty much the same at each bitrate to me

 

[blessingx]

There are several DAPs such as the Rio Karma that work with the Mac, but integration is nothing like the iPod. iPod/iTunes of course, but also iPod/Address Book, iPod/iSync, iPod/Delicious Library, iPod/Sticky Brain, etc. Most Mac users use the iPod, so there's a ton of application support for notes, headlines, etc.

 

[infiskik]

half the size?

Quote:

mp3 ape - 444.05 / 77.4 = 17.4% file size mp3 128 - 444.05 / 40.3 = 09.1% file size AAC 128 - 444.05 / 40.8 = 09.2% file size

also i cant say that 128AAC is equal to -ape at all, doubt many would, and thats the half the file fize

sigh....its starting again......but i would direct you to read the link in my sig, of search for a similar comparssion by blessing.

then i would suggest you rip to different formats till you find the balance of file size and sound quality YOU are content with.

 

[eastsidemetalhd]

... yeah, i guess it does make the most sense to just get an iPod; time to start saving those pennies

will check out the codec comparisons, but seriously, don't think i'm going to be able to tell the difference in quality anyway, especially if it's going to be marginal. maybe i'll test it by just converting a sample cd using both formats and go with the one which takes up less space. thanks again guys.

 

[Thisp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fr4c at the same audio quality, AAC is around half the size of MP3. and yeah, get a iPod.

That's simply untrue. It's like the WMA rumor that 64k WMA = 128k MP3. a 128k AAC is about on par, perhaps even worse than a 192k MP3. It is a better format, but not that drastically. See this.

The Rio Karma works with a java app that'll run on any platform that runs java. I used it with linux for a while. It transfers over ethernet.

 

[blessingx]

Yeah, we should be careful about over-exaggerating new codec performance, but there's a bit of difference in a strict codec comparison between MP3, AAC, Ogg Vorbis, etc. and real world situations. The former arguably should be a straight CBR (or ABR) comparison (across multiple encoders), and the later opens up VBR, etc. (with a best of breed single representative).

The rjamorim tests sited above, if you look at the bitrate distribution table goes as high as 153 kbps (and low as 93) in a 128 kbps test, but does average to 134 for the specific test songs. So within the range and average, LAME specifically performs very close to QT/iTunes specifically, but obviously there are different MP3 and AAC encoders.

Personally at lower and very high bitrates I prefer QT/iTunes AAC, but at most of the bitrates most of the people around here using (for music), I agree there's not much difference.

I'd say figure out if you prefer much much better compatibility or dramatically faster encoding speeds, and choose accordingly. I use lossless files for archiving and AAC for the iPod, so for my 'work-flow', the much faster AAC makes sense, but if I only had a single copy of lossy only and didn't want to rerip/reencode in the future, MP3 would make much more sense.

BTW, if you want to give LAME a shot on your Mac, see this.