[DRuM]

I've just been messing around with AAC and MP3, and different bitrates. I converted a song to AAC 128kbps, 44,100KhZ(5.2mb), and then the same song to MP3, 160kbps, 44,100KhZ(6.6mb). I also converted it to AAC 160kbps, 44.100KhZ(6.7mb)
I'm not sure if I could hear any difference between them when they were all on the iPod. I read somewhere else that some people think AAC at 160kbps is more musical than MP3. To quote one person : " 160kbps AAC sounds better (more musical was how I defined it) than the 320kbps MP3, half the data rate=half the disc space."

Anyone have any opinions on this? I'm thinking, maybe I should conserve space on the HD and stay at 128kbps AAC? Or 128kbps MP3 ?

 

[Michael1980]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRuM I've just been messing around with AAC and MP3, and different bitrates. I converted a song to AAC 128kbps, 44,100KhZ(5.2mb), and then the same song to MP3, 160kbps, 44,100KhZ(6.6mb). I also converted it to AAC 160kbps, 44.100KhZ(6.7mb) I'm not sure if I could hear any difference between them when they were all on the iPod. I read somewhere else that some people think AAC at 160kbps is more musical than MP3. To quote one person : " 160kbps AAC sounds better (more musical was how I defined it) than the 320kbps MP3, half the data rate=half the disc space." Anyone have any opinions on this? I'm thinking, maybe I should conserve space on the HD and stay at 128kbps AAC? Or 128kbps MP3 ?

AAC in iTunes is excellent.
MP3 in iTunes is average at best when comparing to other mp3 codecs.
Hence AAC would be better for everything, except for the fact that you are not really compatible with many devices. But if you only use an iPod than that should not worry you.
PS. IMO there is no way that 160 AAC sounds better than 320 Lame Mp3.

 

[DRuM]

Yeah, I'm only using the iPod , so compatability is not a problem. I think you're right about AAC. I just tested a section of that song, and AAC 128kbps came out ever so slightly more detailed and less compressed than the MP3, yet both files were exactly the same size, 5.3mb, and this time, the MP3 was 128kbps as well.

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael1980 AAC in iTunes is excellent. MP3 in iTunes is average at best when comparing to other mp3 codecs. Hence AAC would be better for everything, except for the fact that you are not really compatible with many devices. But if you only use an iPod than that should not worry you. PS. IMO there is no way that 160 AAC sounds better than 320 Lame Mp3.

In fact, it takes 192 or 224 AAC to roughly equal the sound quality of a 320 LAME MP3.

 

[blessingx]

Like -aps with LAME, generally people seem to say 192 kbps is the upper edge of the performance bubble. I use 256, but I think that's best as I starting point. 128 sounds damn good for 128, but if you're using the phones people do around here, you may want to bump it up.

You may find this page of use.

 

[BigFil]

Your current headphones (EX71 and stock buds right?) may not be revealing all of the differences in bit rate. It sounds like you are planning on getting some higher end canal phones from your previous post which are going to reveal more flaws in lower encoded files. I would caution against anything below 160kbs if you are going to be using good phones. I personally use 224kbs mp3 and am happy with the quality and complete compatiblity. Come to think of it shouldn't MP3 files get the Plays for Sure designation

 

[easypeasy]

Are there any difference between the non-lossy codecs

Apple Lossless/Wave/AIFF should give the same results right

Or is there an impedance mismatch with CD recording frequency so resampling / iterpolation is required

I am so confused

 

[bigshot]

It isn't a matter of sounding "more musical"... that's vague-speak designed to impress more than inform. It's the level where digital artifacting intrudes. When you have strings that gurgle, flutter or warble, or have transient hits that are all smeared over, then you are having problems. AAC has less artifacting at normal bitrates (129-192) than MP3s do at the same setting.

See ya
Steve