[needanamp]

i plan to have a 500gb external hard drive, and have every cd i own stored as FLAC there. Then, on my 60gb hdd, i have 320 or 256 bitrate AAC's. WIll converting from FLAC straight to AAC saound worse than backing up as WAV and then compressing?

Next question, is it true that there is no point in going 320AAC over 256AAC? I heard it is mathematically illogical, something to do with frequency cut-off points: confused:

 

[Coltrane]

1. No, it will sound exactly the same.

2. It is very very unlikely that you will notice a difference between 320 and 256. You can do an ABX listening test for yourself and see, as only your ears can tell. In all likelihood, depending on your system, even 256 is overkill.

 

[needanamp]

ok thsnkyou, but is it or is it not mathmatically impossible to hear a difference betweeen 256 and 320? i clearly remember a post saying that (it was a post with visual graphs of files ripped into aac and mp3 from 64 all the way to 320, with like orange lines on the black graph) it is literally impossible to tell the difference.

 

[stevenkelby]

I haven't ABX'd but am covinced I can hear 320 over 256 on my modest system, the same way, but to a lesser extent, that we all can hear 320 over 64.

Even if I couldn't hear a difference I would still not encode at less than 320 in case, for example, I take my portable source to anyones house with a $100 000 speaker system which shows the diference.

I would keep everything in flac for the same reason but don't have space!

My ears can't tell the difeerence between 320 and flac on my current systems though.

 

[shigzeo]

the graph that the head-fier made was nice, but sound is not something that makes much sense to graph. some encoders i think such as blade was it show up well on that sort of graph though they sound rubbish. a graph will not show the strength of psychoacoustic encoders, merely their faults. that said, if we really did abx and double blind listening with help of another person, i would doubt many if any would be able to tell the difference between 256 and flac... but... haha

 

[blessingx]

Also keep in mind that although all AAC is VBR (actually ABR), the VBR setting on 256 has a higher bitrate swing than the non-VBR setting 320, so that bitrate gap between 256 and 320 on complexed passages is less than it may seem by looking at the 64 kbps difference. Also keep in mind 320 is often selected just because it's the highest setting. I would not hesitate to encode with 256 over 320.

 

[bigshot]

I read somewhere that the maximum bitrate that AAC was designed for was 256. Personally, 192 VBR AAC does the trick for me 99% of the time.

See ya
Steve

 

[hempcamp]

Another vote for 192 AAC. If you have all of it stored as lossless somewhere else as a backup (which you can then use to convert to future formats), 192 is pretty darned good. I can't discern a difference above that bit rate except with certain low-dynamic movements of well-recorded symphonic pieces.

--Chris

 

[BrookR1]

I'm struggling with iTunes. Ripped CDs at 320 AAC sound worse to me than 200+ MP3s I download from eMusic. I thought I had it figured out, now I'm thinking of re-ripping my CDs...ugghhh.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrookR1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm struggling with iTunes. Ripped CDs at 320 AAC sound worse to me than 200+ MP3s I download from eMusic. I thought I had it figured out, now I'm thinking of re-ripping my CDs...ugghhh.

A few reasons could be at fault, here's a few:

1) eMusic uses a better ripping technique, such as using EAC
2) eMusic uses VBR mp3's, which is very aggressive and sounds very good because of it (compared to ABR and CBR encoders)
3) You may be ripping with normalization on, which destroys the integrity of the audio file
4) Different masters of the same music

 

[BrookR1]

Thanks for your help Redo...if I can't resolve the issue by messing with iTunes settings, I'll look into other rippers and then possibly a CD player upgrade. I feel like I'm wasting my money on CDs! I'll first AB my CDs running straight from the player and then the ripped version. I buy used CDs, so it's possible they're slightly damaged.

 

[error401]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif A few reasons could be at fault, here's a few: 1) eMusic uses a better ripping technique, such as using EAC 2) eMusic uses VBR mp3's, which is very aggressive and sounds very good because of it (compared to ABR and CBR encoders) 3) You may be ripping with normalization on, which destroys the integrity of the audio file 4) Different masters of the same music

5) iTunes may be resampling to 48KHz as it is apparently prone to doing

IMO the iTunes encoders aren't very good, though my experience is weighted towards the MP3 one which is decidedly awful. EAC->LAME V2 or V0 would probably satisfy you, otherwise it sounds like lossless is your only route

.

 

[trose49]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevenkelby /img/forum/go_quote.gif I haven't ABX'd but am covinced I can hear 320 over 256 on my modest system, the same way, but to a lesser extent, that we all can hear 320 over 64. Even if I couldn't hear a difference I would still not encode at less than 320 in case, for example, I take my portable source to anyones house with a $100 000 speaker system which shows the diference. I would keep everything in flac for the same reason but don't have space! My ears can't tell the difeerence between 320 and flac on my current systems though.

I find this hard to believe and this coming from me that should mean something to you.

By the way didnt you know tha ABX talk has been banned from Head-fi as I have heard it affectionately as the [size=medium]trose rule![/size] LOL! Im honered!

 

[BrookR1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by error401 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 5) iTunes may be resampling to 48KHz as it is apparently prone to doing IMO the iTunes encoders aren't very good, though my experience is weighted towards the MP3 one which is decidedly awful. EAC->LAME V2 or V0 would probably satisfy you, otherwise it sounds like lossless is your only route .

Well, I ABed my songs again once I got home and couldn't hear the difference I heard earlier today. From my computer, they sounded great. I think what happened is that I switched from a really good sounding album (Ultra Vivid Scene) to a poor sounding one (Lush) and thought to myself that I don't remember the song sounding that bad. It might also be my 2G nano. I went back and forth from 256 VBR to 320 non-VBR AAC to CD and couldn't tell a difference. I could tell a very slight difference between 209 MP3 and 256 VBR AAC. I did hear this annoying hiss out of my computer CD player using my SR-80s. My 325is should be coming any day now...I'll be able to better track the problem using them. And then after that it's (of course) more money.

 

[bigshot]

Try 192 VBR AAC. I bet you still can't hear a difference with that setting.

A/B testing is the way to tell.

See ya
Steve