iPod AAC Bitrate Question
Mar 12, 2005 at 3:59 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 40

StrikerTek

New Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
24
Likes
0
Ok, right now, nearly all of my library is formatted in 128kbps AAC. This was fine for me with the stock headphones, and sounded pretty good.

Then I got some Shure e2c's, and I thought I'd try upping the bitrate to see if I could tell a difference on some songs I really liked. So I re-ripped them at 192 AAC, and I could definitely tell a difference on the Shure's, but it was hardly noticeable on the stock buds. The Shure's sound much better playing 192 songs.

So I've only encoded a few songs at 192, and I'm wondering if I should make the bitrate higher to make my library more future-proof so I don't have to do this again. I can't really tell a difference with any higher bitrates on the e2c's, but I will probably eventually upgrade to better canalphones (e4c, e5c, or um2's). Will these be able to take advantage of a higher bitrate?

I did a search, and several people have er4's, which are more detailed in the highs than any shure's or westones, and they can't tell a substantial difference between 224/256 AAC and 320 AAC. So I'm thinking of going with 224 or 256, but which one? Will there be a significant decrease in battery life as compared to sound quality between these two?
 
Mar 12, 2005 at 4:09 AM Post #2 of 40
256 for me (when I use AAC). Above that, I really don't notice much difference. No significant battery effects at this level.

I'm not a "Shure person," but I'd assume that the higher-end models would be more discerning than your E2Cs given their increased sensitivity. Even then, 256 should be more than adequate.
 
Mar 12, 2005 at 7:20 AM Post #6 of 40
That's some funny crap. You WERE drunk? Sobered up now?
 
Mar 13, 2005 at 5:51 AM Post #10 of 40
I only listen to compressed stuff when on the portable or sometimes at work when I'm mostly working rather than listening anyway. Given that, I use 224 or 192 depending on what it is. If it's not a particularly great recording to start with, 192 is good enough, but if it's a better recording 224 is what I go with. 320 is a little bit better on good recordings but not enough to be worth the almost 50% increase in file size, at least not on my iPod.
 
Mar 13, 2005 at 7:37 AM Post #11 of 40
I encode at 192, but when I hear artifacting, I up it to 256. That's pretty rare.

See ya
Steve
 
Mar 13, 2005 at 7:25 PM Post #12 of 40
You really should encode a couple tracks at both bitrates and listen for yourself. After that you can compare the file sizes in Windows Explorer and see which one suits you best.
 
Mar 14, 2005 at 7:59 PM Post #14 of 40
I started at 128kbps, too. Then I bumped it up to iTunes encoding VBR mp3 with the "Highest" quality setting and a floor of 160kbps. This yields files averaging 170-180kbps and I think they sound pretty decent for my uses. However, now, in the interest of futureproofing myself I'm thinking about going with Apple Lossless. You might want to think about it too. Hard drives are cheap, so you could just buy one, rip all your CDs to ALAC. Then you have a great full rez library and you can encode to whichever lossy format suits your mood pretty easily.
 
Mar 14, 2005 at 8:09 PM Post #15 of 40
You may want to glance at Eagle_Drivers comments here (corresponds to Apple's recommended 9MB and under file size limit). Possible argument for 224 over 256/320.

Also for anyone on OS X, use the Apple Lossless to AAC link in my sig to maintain an ALAC file on your computer, but AAC file on your iPod.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top