[ojnihs]

Okay...

So I've been using 128 kbps AAC to load songs onto my iPod because I try to get as many songs on there as possible.

Currently on my spare time, I've been re-ripping songs at 320 kbps and I can't really hear the difference. I guess the main issue is that I don't exactly know what differences I should be listening for.

Another problem is that I'm trying to hear the difference using speakers connected into the headphone jack on my Powerbook or using my iPod. So.. I have no idea what to do so that I can really hear the difference, any suggestions?

 

[ted_b]

Well, if the iPod or your laptop are the intended sources, and you're using the headphones or speakers you intend to use, then simplify your life and come to the conclusion that, to you, 128 is the way to go! This is all about our own musical tastes, our ability to hear, and our lifestyle anway, isn't it? You'redone...you've found your "resonant frquency" at 128. Congrats.

Personally, I rip from EAC and then convert to 224 AAC (because I heard more air and better piano on 224 than anything less, and any higher bitrate short of native was significantly diminished returns, i.e larger files, no better sound, really) on iTunes and download to my iPod. Using a set of PX-200's or my Ety er4-s's with a decent amp (XIN SuperMicro just arrived at the mailbox...yeah), I'm happy.....most of the time

Ted_B

 

[Rempert]

I don't see any reason for you to worry about it. Since file size is a major factor for portable use, and you are not hearing any noticeable differences with careful listening, the logical conclusion is that you should stick with the smaller file size for your iPod.

If you really want to try to pick out differences, you may want to browse some of the forums at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org , look for posts where people did double blind listening tests, and note some of the trouble spots that people are able to detect. But if you can't notice any problems with your music at 128 with the equipment you normally use under the conditions you normally use it in, there is simply no practical reason to go bigger.

 

[Melchior]

AAC is one of the newer codecs that works rather well at 128, still, the most telling part of the music is in the highs, especially cymbals and their associated decay. Complex passages with lots of instruments playing (this is usually where high note distortion becomes most evident) are a good place to start.

*edit*: depending on what speakers you're using exactly (cheap portableish ones, high end multimedia) it's gonna be hard if not impossible to tell the difference. The stock Ipod earphones should be revealing enough, but I havent tried AB'ing low and high bitrate aac with earbuds, so I can't be sure.

 

[hempcamp]

Except for certain recordings, 128k AAC is pretty transparent to my ears for portable use. I encode at 160 or 192 just for the hell of it.

320 AAC is just too much unless you are really going to seal yourself off from the world with Etys -- even then it might be hard to tell some differences. Save your disk space and go with something lower.

--Chris

 

[blessingx]

Like others have said, if you can't hear the difference stick with the lower bitrate, unless you're like me and hate to reencode your entire CD collection should you upgrade your source/speakers/phones.

I think 128 QT AAC is amazing for 128 kbps, but 192 is much better. RealNetworks, just announced music service, will use 192.

Also you might find this site a little useful.

 

[SunByrne]

Yep, I'll agree here--if you're listening to something not very revealing, then 128 kbps AAC is probably just fine.

For my normal iPod listening (MX400 buds), I find 128 isn't quite good enough, and I rip at 160 or 192 depending on what it is that I'm ripping.