Is AAC really that bad?

[Czilla9000]

I must confess this is the first time I have visited this forum (well...subforum).

Having said that, I know that in general audiophiles frown on AAC.

I have become lazy as of late. Rather than bother to buy actual CDs, I am now buying most of my stuff off of iTunes - which is 128 AAC. I then burn them on to CD.

Personally, even over my Stax system, I don't think they sound so bad. The music I have been buying is classical. I downloaded a recording of the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto that is available in SACD (and I have an SACD player), but the 128 AAC version sounds good.

Is this Heresy? I am I really missing anything compared to the uncompressed CDs (and SACDs)?

 

[aeriyn]

In general audiophiles frown on lossy compression, usually. =P

I mainly use 224kbps AAC because it's a good codec that I can easily get onto my iPod Mini by using iTunes. The EAC/LAME method is too much hassle for my portable music, personally.

When at home, however, I don't listen to lossily compressed music. Why should I, when all my CDs are right here?

Btw, buying music off of iTMS or any other music store is a huge ripoff. You pay nearly full price to get very low-quality tracks. I'd understand if you were getting FLAC/ALAC or some other lossless method, but... 128kbps AAC?! That's dumb.

 

[blessingx]

Sure you're missing something, but like every other part of this site, the differences are wildly overblown.

128 AAC sounds pretty damn good for such a low bitrate. Ogg Vorbis too. And there are those that like XM and Sirius at even lower bitrates (though different compression). Hell I've been enjoying internet radio lately too.

That all said, if you take a CD and compare up the bitrate ladder, 128 kbps AAC, is still lacking a bit. Move up to 224 AAC and the differences start disappearing between it and lossless/uncompressed (though likely the differences are still there for some ears.

 

[jpr703]

I'm using 320k AAC with pretty good equipment (see my profile). I tested the format against Apple Lossless and against a PCDP and have found that there is a small difference--a very small difference.

I could use a PCDP. I could use lossless. I could buy a full-size CD player for the office.

I choose to use AAC. For portable use, it's more than adequate.

 

[jefemeister]

After a little bit of research I settled on 224 AAC. I brought my ipod along with me on a recent business trip. I used Grado SR-60 direct from the headphone out. It sounded really bad (basically unlistenable for me) and I was worried that AAC or the bitrate were not ideal.

When I got home, I listened to a bunch of original wavs and the matching 224 AAC using E-mu 0404 -> Wadia 12 DAC -> Headroom Home -> Senn 650 w/ Silver Dragon. This is a vastly better system than any portable system I would ever own. The difference is definitely there, but the AAC is still very enjoyable and really only sounds "bad" when compared directly to the wav. Long story short: the sound quality of the ipod is the limiting factor, not the file type or bit rate.

My next move is obviously to use the line out into a headamp.

 

[Piccolo Daimaou]

I was weary of AAC at first, but honestly, it doesn't sound any different to me than mp3s. Below 256, I can tell the difference on certain songs between the WAV and the AAC. Above 256, though, I'm pretty much guessing which is the WAV and which is the AAC.

 

[DCnphones]

While most of my collection is at 192 or better, I'm still surprised when listening to my Ipod, using the line out, and my HD600's connected to my Porta Corda, at just how good some of my songs sound at only 128kbps.
But yes, the ipod holds a lot of the sound back. The amp breathes new life into the mix, but some old recordings that have bad instrument soundstage simply come off as mushy with more analytical cans.

 

[sclemmons]

AAC 320 to Airport Express via Cardas Mini to RCA to Joule Electra preamp at my house. Sounds inferior to CD but very respectable for party shuffle during dinner time. Decent soundstage, surprisingly. Sounds as good as some of my 80's vintage CD's I think. Unless you have a highly resolving setup, and really care a lot about fidelity, you can be pretty happy with AAC 320, IMHO.

AAC 320 on my iPod is plenty good for air travel... SR71 helps it a lot. It is still inferior to AIFF or Apple Lossless. But when I care about that at home, I play CD or vinyl. I don't want to use the hard drive space or battery life that AIFF requires for my iPod. But I may on my Mac Mini when I step up for one. I am debating re-ripping to Apple Lossless, but I have resisted so far.

 

[3lusiv3]

I encode at 320 AAC and can't tell the difference between 320 AAC and uncompressed or lossless.

 

[Archeopteryx]

While the audiophile purist is of course going to object to lossy encoders in general, I think the reason for any mistrust of aac is simply that it's new. MPC, based of older technology even than MP3 was long (maybe even still) considered the best lossy codec simply because its developers have had the longest time to analyze and improve the descisions it makes about what is lost, especially through ABX trials (although if you really want quality it probably makes more sense to use FLAC in these days of 40GB portables). Go to hydrogenaudio.org for more than you ever wanted to know about this subject.

 

[AdamWill]

archeopteryx: my 30GB portable is full at 128KB (approx), hehe

. need...more...space...

 

[jturn00]

I encoded my music in AAC 192.
I didn't have any good equipment to see if I could detect a difference with 192 vs. 224 vs 320 but from what I read on previous threads as well as www.ipodlounge.com, it is hard to tell the difference.

Now that I have new Shure E3Cs and a Mini Moy on the way, I am wondering if I can tell a difference. {I will start testing this weekend.}

Any recommendations for song to test it with? Should I re-rip my music from 192 to something higher like 224 or 320?

Jeff

 

[jesse_w]

My experience has been the difference between formats is miniscule compared to the difference between a given format on different sources. In my experience a small step down in source mangles higher bitrates and CDs to the point where the slightly better source sounds better with lower bitrates. Obviously there are slight improvements on a given source, but they're much less obvious (and sometimes nonexistant) to me.

jesse

 

[EdipisReks]

i generally use 192 or 224 kbps AAC, and i'm very happy with it. personally, with my equipment, i can't tell the difference between these files and the original cd's. they sound great on my friends MartinLogan Prodigy/Descent system, too.

 

[mhcarlos]

I posted recently asking about 320 versus lossless. In the end I settled, for 256.

As some head-fiers suggested (some of them are on this thread, I noticed), it's dependent on your own ear and the equipment. On my set-up, I didn't note any "significant" difference between 256, 320 and lossless (lossless does seem to get lower and instruments like cymbals seem mroe distinct, but I'm not really an audiophile like most people here, so don't take my word for it). But everything seems to be relative.

I don't have time and motivation to come up with a home set-up, but if I do, I'll probably do lossless, or just get a decent CD player and a good home amp.