Gaffer74
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Posts
- 41
- Likes
- 11
I thought I'd try a quick experiment to test which bitrate I should encode songs onto my iPod.
I created the following versions of the song "Like A Star" by Corinne Bailey Rae (4min 3sec):
1: AIFF , 1411kbps ... 41Mb
2: WAV , 1411kbps ... 41Mb
3: Apple Lossless , 778kbps ... 22.7Mb
4: MP3 , 320kbps ... 9.4Mb
5: AAC , 320kbps ... 9.3Mb
6: AAC , 192kbps ...5.6Mb
7: AAC , 128kbps ... 3.8Mb
8: MP3 , 128kbps ... 3.8Mb
I've also included the file sizes.
I attached to line-in on my second hi-fi and sat in the other room (out of sight...where the speakers are) and got my nephew to play the songs in any order (the hi-fi is situated in the adjoining room).
Despite what I expected, it was usually quite easy to distinguish between them.
I did have trouble distinguishing between AIFF and WAV files.
The Lossless file sounded slightly "sharper", and therefore more "in your face".
Beyond these, there was a clearer reduction in quality in that guitar strings didn't sound quite right, vocals started sounding a bit harsher with the next formats:
AAC 320 sounded very good, but I again found it more difficult to distinguish between MP3 320 and AAC 192. Overall I felt the AAC 192 provided more "air" to the proceedings and was better suited to vocals, but MP3 320 provided more "depth" and gave a better picture of bass....but it was close between them.
AAC 128 was clearly rubbish with distorted vocals and a nasty "equalised boom box" feel to the music.
MP3 128....eeeuuuuurgh, the less said the better. I wouldn't call it music...I would call it noise.
To confirm, I then burnt the tracks onto a CD using Toast Titanium. This re-converted all to aiff format, but the pre-existing formats were the rate limiting step, so any deficiencies would still be heard (and be a function of the format they were converted from...ie a AAC 128 song converted to AIFF will only sound as good as the AAC 128 song did in the first place).
Same results.
So in order of preference, I had (best->worst)
1 = 2
3
5
4 = 6
7
8
...and am glad I stuck with AAC 192 when i first got my iPod a year ago. It offers the same excellent sound of MP3 320 quality, but for much less space (about 40% less).
(The reason I chose to play through the dedicated Hi-Fi is that it should be easier to pick up subtle differences in sound).
I'm also convinced that AAC sounds "good" on the iPod because it is effectively altering the sound similar to what you might get sticking an uncompressed track through an equaliser setting like "acoustic" or "treble booster". That's why it sounded more "airy" imo....but for the purposes of portable audio, it still sounds excellent.
I'm not saying this is any way definitive...just that it works for me and to show how easy it is to do. Remember, at all times, even though I couldn't always distinguish between AIFF and WAV, they were both clearly superior to the others on a dedicated Hi-Fi set-up (which is why I always buy CD's I like rather than download from iTunes/bittorrent).
It's a simple and easy way for you to try yourself to see "how low you can go" before SQ becomes unnacceptable on portable machines.
(i always stick with best SQ possible for my Hi-Fi seperates though
)
I created the following versions of the song "Like A Star" by Corinne Bailey Rae (4min 3sec):
1: AIFF , 1411kbps ... 41Mb
2: WAV , 1411kbps ... 41Mb
3: Apple Lossless , 778kbps ... 22.7Mb
4: MP3 , 320kbps ... 9.4Mb
5: AAC , 320kbps ... 9.3Mb
6: AAC , 192kbps ...5.6Mb
7: AAC , 128kbps ... 3.8Mb
8: MP3 , 128kbps ... 3.8Mb
I've also included the file sizes.
I attached to line-in on my second hi-fi and sat in the other room (out of sight...where the speakers are) and got my nephew to play the songs in any order (the hi-fi is situated in the adjoining room).
Despite what I expected, it was usually quite easy to distinguish between them.
I did have trouble distinguishing between AIFF and WAV files.
The Lossless file sounded slightly "sharper", and therefore more "in your face".
Beyond these, there was a clearer reduction in quality in that guitar strings didn't sound quite right, vocals started sounding a bit harsher with the next formats:
AAC 320 sounded very good, but I again found it more difficult to distinguish between MP3 320 and AAC 192. Overall I felt the AAC 192 provided more "air" to the proceedings and was better suited to vocals, but MP3 320 provided more "depth" and gave a better picture of bass....but it was close between them.
AAC 128 was clearly rubbish with distorted vocals and a nasty "equalised boom box" feel to the music.
MP3 128....eeeuuuuurgh, the less said the better. I wouldn't call it music...I would call it noise.
To confirm, I then burnt the tracks onto a CD using Toast Titanium. This re-converted all to aiff format, but the pre-existing formats were the rate limiting step, so any deficiencies would still be heard (and be a function of the format they were converted from...ie a AAC 128 song converted to AIFF will only sound as good as the AAC 128 song did in the first place).
Same results.
So in order of preference, I had (best->worst)
1 = 2
3
5
4 = 6
7
8
...and am glad I stuck with AAC 192 when i first got my iPod a year ago. It offers the same excellent sound of MP3 320 quality, but for much less space (about 40% less).
(The reason I chose to play through the dedicated Hi-Fi is that it should be easier to pick up subtle differences in sound).
I'm also convinced that AAC sounds "good" on the iPod because it is effectively altering the sound similar to what you might get sticking an uncompressed track through an equaliser setting like "acoustic" or "treble booster". That's why it sounded more "airy" imo....but for the purposes of portable audio, it still sounds excellent.
I'm not saying this is any way definitive...just that it works for me and to show how easy it is to do. Remember, at all times, even though I couldn't always distinguish between AIFF and WAV, they were both clearly superior to the others on a dedicated Hi-Fi set-up (which is why I always buy CD's I like rather than download from iTunes/bittorrent).
It's a simple and easy way for you to try yourself to see "how low you can go" before SQ becomes unnacceptable on portable machines.
(i always stick with best SQ possible for my Hi-Fi seperates though