[voidturbulence]

Which one has better quality??? I have both in my library and I don't know which one reigns. HELP!

 

[BrownBear]

I've seen this posted a few times before on here, you could also try a search and see what you turn up with that as well. Obviously the 320 MP3 is a higher quality bit rate than the 256 AAC.
 
With regards to those two formats, for me personally, I've never been able to tell the difference between those two, at any bit rate. Obviously when it starts getting obnoxiously low, like 64kbps, then I can tell. But between the two you've mentioned, I could never tell a difference. Regardless, I still rip any CD's I get in 320 kbps, either AAC or MP3. Both sound the same to me.
 
What you could do, is make a few copies from a CD you have of those two formats and bit rates and see which sound better to you. If you can't tell a difference, then it's all up to disk space really. If you have the space, I would say rip in the higher quality format.

 

[ZARIM]

The Cnet also open discussion on this long ago and find AAC 192kbps are equel to MP3 320kbps and i find the same results the AAC 256kbps are supperior sounding.

 

[Youngblood]

Quote:

I've seen this posted a few times before on here, you could also try a search and see what you turn up with that as well. Obviously the 320 MP3 is a higher quality bit rate than the 256 AAC.
 
With regards to those two formats, for me personally, I've never been able to tell the difference between those two, at any bit rate. Obviously when it starts getting obnoxiously low, like 64kbps, then I can tell. But between the two you've mentioned, I could never tell a difference. Regardless, I still rip any CD's I get in 320 kbps, either AAC or MP3. Both sound the same to me.
 
What you could do, is make a few copies from a CD you have of those two formats and bit rates and see which sound better to you. If you can't tell a difference, then it's all up to disk space really. If you have the space, I would say rip in the higher quality format.

+1
 
Difference will be very little if even noticeable. the most important thing about digital media is the quality of the rip instead of the format, for instance a rip from 2001 may not sound as good as one from 2011. Granted Format does play a role in the case of 64kbps vs 320kbps, the higher will win. I have had files at 128 that I would think are 320 but end up being low bitrate, and then I've had files at 128 that I can't stand lol.
 
In your situation the MP3 is a higher bitrate so it should be the best. I use either FLAC or 320 MP3 in my library.

 

[mimat777]

320kbs with no doubt is better option. I prefer cbr than vbr

 

[Shadin]

The chances you'll be able to tell a difference are slim to none.  I'd go with either 256 AAC or LAME MP3 V0, but I would also recommend that you take some time and perform an ABX test, you'd be surprised how low you can go before you start being able to discern the files from their lossless counterparts.

 

[bowei006]

AAC 256kbps VBR if you are unsure. It has a small size and sounds like the others if you can't tell them apart. You are asking us if we were to buy a red delicious Apple......and there were three all from the same tree..which one would we choose... Boy A would think Apple A tastes better and blah blah blah. If you aren't sure. Just go with AAC 256kbps VBR.

 

[proton007]

Technically, the AAC compression is kinda better than MP3, but at 320kbps, as others say, not a lot of difference.

 

[bowei006]

Quote:

Technically, the AAC compression is kinda better than MP3, but at 320kbps, as others say, not a lot of difference.

Well even if it's technically, the algorythmns they use are in real time and can't be determined to see WHAT exactly they will do pre encoding so .....yeah. Since it changes every time its hard to say. Anyway. Just use what you like.

 

[JK1]

How is AAC playback when it comes to battery life? On some players any other format besides mp3 gives much less playback time.

 

[bowei006]

Quote:

How is AAC playback when it comes to battery life? On some players any other format besides mp3 gives much less playback time.

It usually has pretty excellent battery life. 

 

[jasonb]

I use a mix of both. The stuff i rip from cd with itunes or download from itunes is 256 aac. The music i download from Bandcamp i download in 320 mp3 and i dont do any additional converting. 
 
The streams from BandCamp are only 128, and they actually sound damn good.

 

[proton007]

Usually lossless will consume the batter fastest because most devices can only cache one/two lossless songs at most, and frequently needs to access storage memory to load tracks. The iPod Classic takes a hit here because of the HDD.
Compressed formats should be about the same, most songs will be around 9-10 mb.

 

[jz9chen]

I convert FLAC/APE to 511kbps AAC for iPod/iPhone listening.
 
I keep MP3's the way I get them.
 
If I rip CD's then I just use ALAC for iPod/iPhone. Foobar2000 runs it too.

 

[enthusiast]

Old thread, but still relevant. Since Bandcamp uses fdkaac, libfdk-aac VBR mode 4 at around 112kbps average, I think their AAC format is inferiour to the MP3 one.
See: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/pub...odecs-mp3-aac-mp4-ogg-vorbis-and-opus.728636/
As mentioned above already, BC uses MP3 CBR with 320 kbps.

So I consider their MP3 to be superiour to their AAC codec. It's worth mentioning that in my own listening tests with closed EtherCs and a de-jittering Violectric Stack their ALAC files were sounding quite bad. Strong words, but there were quality issues. Maybe someone could confirm. Leading to the conclusion that only propietary Apple codecs are probably good.