[davidr2287]

Which one gives you the best sound quality?

 

[jinx20001]

i ent 100% sure but id guess the 320 mp3is the best because its a constant 320 rate...whereas the VBR's are not constant and can drop below that (i think i have that the right way round)

 

[TMM]

320 MP3, but imo V0 MP3 will give you very near 320 MP3 quality, but a smaller file size.

 

[eruditass]

to 99.9% of all people they will all sound the same. technically speaking, probably 256VBR AAC will be the best. VBR is used to drop down below that when it isn't needed (unless you use a crappy encoding setting) like during digital silence (why waste 320 kbps?) or slow padssages. mp3 and aac are compressed differently.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidr2287 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Which one gives you the best sound quality?

Most likely they would all be indistinguishable to the original to you. However, the encoder that you use can make a difference. Also, different people have different sensitivity to encoding artifacts. The only way to really tell is to test for yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx20001 /img/forum/go_quote.gif i ent 100% sure but id guess the 320 mp3is the best because its a constant 320 rate...whereas the VBR's are not constant and can drop below that (i think i have that the right way round)

Would it be too much to ask you to proofread your posts and maybe use some punctuation? Your writing is incomprehensible.

 

[epaludo]

There isn't a 256 VBR MP3 file. As the name says, VBR stands for variable bit rate and you can't 100% predict the file size (or how many bit rate per second). You can choose the compression level (-v0, -v1, -v2, etc.).
As others said previously, 320 CRB and -v0 VBR MP3 files sounds very similar. I can't tell the difference as most of people. Some say being able to do so though. Said that, -v0 is transparent for a lot of people, even when compared with lossless files ...

 

[jinx20001]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Most likely they would all be indistinguishable to the original to you. However, the encoder that you use can make a difference. Also, different people have different sensitivity to encoding artifacts. The only way to really tell is to test for yourself. Would it be too much to ask you to proofread your posts and maybe use some punctuation? Your writing is incomprehensible.

what you chattin bout! i dont come on head fi to practice my punctuation skills so whats the need to chat like you an english teacher

 

[espire]

AAC actually takes more space than it claims, and sounds better than equivalent bit rates of MP3. For example, a 128kbps AAC file is about as good as a 160kbps MP3 file, but they'll both actually take up about the same space.

That would be to say that a 256kbps (minimum average) VBR AAC file will have an average sound better than a 320kbps MP3, but will be more efficient than a standard 256kbps AAC.

I'd think that the flat bit rare AAC will sound best. However, if you're worried so much about what encoding to use, you should be using either Apple Lossless or FLAC.

 

[torpy]

To be honest, I've used all three (ripped through iTunes, mp3 VBR was done with a 'Medium' quality setting) and with the 'phones and speaker I have I can't hear a difference.

Your best bet would be to try all three and go with the one that sounds best. Or if they all sound the same go with the one that uses the least space.

 

[tdogzthmn]

What about 320 AAC vs. 320 MP3? I doubt you would notice a difference but it think AAC gives me smaller file-sizes when encoding

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdogzthmn /img/forum/go_quote.gif What about 320 AAC vs. 320 MP3? I doubt you would notice a difference but it think AAC gives me smaller file-sizes when encoding

No, the files should be the same size if they are the same bitrate.

 

[tstarn06]

Any reason to leave WMA out of the mix? Just curious. I rip some files at 256 WMA and 192 WMA, and they sound pretty good to me. At lower rates (for marginal songs), I use 96 or 128 WMA, and they also sound fine (better than MP2 in my view).

I use EAC as well, at 320VBR with LAME, but I guess my ears just are not sophisticated enough to tell the difference. I just got a new Zune, so I am going to rip some of my favorite artists at WMA Lossless and see how that sounds too.

 

[eruditass]

i'd like to hear some electrostatic opinions on this matter, sinces i'm sure most hydrogenaudio.org people don't have such setups probably.

 

[E.B.M.Head]

Usually AAC is better than MP3, because it is the more modern codec that doesn't have some of the design flaws that MP3 has.
For most Pop / simple Rock stuff most people can't hear any differences at 128kps (both AAC and actual Lame 3.98) compared to the CD original.
With very critical music Lame -V0 is to be prefered to Lame -b 320, as the encoder is then using the bitrate reservoir in very critical passages (and could exceed 320 kpbs when needed) and dropping the bitrate when it isn't needed to be that high. AAC and Lame 3.98 have differnt types of problem sounds. While AAC has trouble with some types of electronical music (noise with lots of spartial effects), MP3 has often problems with dense accoustical stuff.
But for the stuff most of you guys are listening MP3 and AAC at 128kbps is enough. If you are into Classical, Folk, Metal, Noise, Industrial, Schranz, ... then better use the highest VBR setting, as you otherwise might hear the encoder flaws every now and then. If you are a paranoid audiophile then your only choice is a lossless codec like FLAC, WavPack or Apple Lossless.

 

[nickchen]

Ah, E.B.M., back in town?

I re-ripped some of my CDs recently (before 160 kbit Fraunhofer, now 320 kbit LAME) and was quite astonished to find a wider soundscape with the HQ pieces.