[3lusiv3]

I started with 160 MP3, then gradually moved to, 192 VBR, 256 VBR then 320 VBR. I don't like to think that I "may" be missing out on anything. I have only just changed to 320 AAC for new encodes, so my MP3's a bit mixed up at different bitrates. I can definitely hear the difference below 192 VBR but above that it is very dependant on the complexity and type of music, plus the quality of your speakers, amps, headphones, etc. If you're not sure what to use I would suggest you start at 256 AAC. I can't tell the difference between this and any higher bitrates but I do them higher anyway, just in case.

 

[stark23x]

Quote:

Originally posted by SouthPaW1227 Nice program there! I rip all mine at 320kbps AAC...it's smaller than MP3 but has the same quality, if not better, than MP3.

Actually, 320 CBR MP3 is smaller than 320 CBR AAC.

 

[Hoshyoto]

Quote:

Originally posted by phonatic AAC 128 here... I can tell a difference, but AAC at 128 is in fact pretty good for most things, and iTunes is the best AAC encoder out there... way better than it is for MP3 (use LAME instead if you need MP3).

I just downloaded EAC, and I was wondering if Itunes was better than that for ripping AAC files. If not, what setting should I use on EAC?

Thanks,

Jeff

 

[br--]

Quote:

Actually, 320 CBR MP3 is smaller than 320 CBR AAC.

Is that a joke?

 

[stark23x]

No. AAC is not smaller at the same bitrate. The "benefit" to AAC is that it offers better quality at a lower bitrate, hence saving space. At the same bitrate, AAC files are larger.

 

[3lusiv3]

Quote:

Originally posted by stark23x No. AAC is not smaller at the same bitrate. The "benefit" to AAC is that it offers better quality at a lower bitrate, hence saving space. At the same bitrate, AAC files are larger.

They aren't different enough in size to bother about, so it would be better to use AAC I assume.

 

[stark23x]

Quote:

Originally posted by 3lusiv3 They aren't different enough in size to bother about, so it would be better to use AAC I assume.

That's a matter of opinion. I don't like the signature of AAC, I find it thinner and colder at every bitrate.

Not to mention the fact that if you use the same bitrate as your comparison and start talking about a collection the size of mine (100+ gigabytes), small savings add up.

Not that I use CBR anyway. Easy CD-DA/LAME with --alt preset extreme serves me well. MP3s are more software-compatible...tagging utilities, Moodlogic, etc. AAC isn't quite there yet.

Anyway, back to my point: AAC is not smaller, and anyone who thought it was is not using the format as intended, or doing much research...the point of AAC was to lower bitrates (hence smaller files) while retaining quality. For exampe, a 128K AAC is comparable to a 160K mp3.

 

[br--]

Quote:

No. AAC is not smaller at the same bitrate. The "benefit" to AAC is that it offers better quality at a lower bitrate, hence saving space. At the same bitrate, AAC files are larger.

If I have a 320kbps MP3, it takes up 320 kilobits every second. If I have a 320kbps AAC, it takes up 320 kilobits every second. What you notice as a file difference is just the extra padding some AAC encoders have that MP3 does not.

What you are arguing is akin to me saying I have a 5mb AVI file that is larger than a 5mb MOV file. Kilobits per second defines the SIZE of the file, just as megabytes, gigabytes, etc, do.

 

[stark23x]

Quote:

Originally posted by br-- If I have a 320kbps MP3, it takes up 320 kilobits every second. If I have a 320kbps AAC, it takes up 320 kilobits every second. What you notice as a file difference is just the extra padding some AAC encoders have that MP3 does not. What you are arguing is akin to me saying I have a 5mb AVI file that is larger than a 5mb MOV file. Kilobits per second defines the SIZE of the file, just as megabytes, gigabytes, etc, do.

What? The amount of space it takes on my hard drive is what deternines the size...not the bitrate the way *you're* describing it. Where'd you get your understanding of compression?

I showed you that AAC is larger at equal bitrates. REGARDLESS of encoders.

Whatever you're on about has nothing to do with the fact that at equal bitrates, AAC is larger and takes up more space on a hard drive.

 

[br--]

Bitrate determines the effective rate of transmission of data. If I am listening to a 128kbps mp3 stream, the effective transfer for 1 minute of audio is 16kbps x 60 seconds = 960kbps.

Likewise, if it was a windows media audio stream of the same bitrate, you will have transfered the same amount (minus padding) in 1 minute. Since the songs you are ripping will be the same length in time as all the others, at the same bitrate, the size will be the same (minus tags and metadata which is what you have on your AACs that aren't on your MP3s, hence the size difference).

This has nothing to do with compression at all by the way. Transfers done on the networks, on hard disks, etc are all done in kbps/mbps regardless if the data is compressed or not.

Here is another analogy for you, which stems from a popular riddle. If I am holding two five pound buckets, one filled with water, and the other filled with molasses, which one is heavier? They are both five pounds so they are the same weight. Here, both files are the same bitrate so they result in the same filesize. Hopefully you understand now.

 

[stark23x]

You;re not making any sense, man. Equal bitrates, due to the type of compression used, result in different file sizes.

Are you blind? Or ar you just trying to obfuscate a mistake you made when you challenged my original statement that a 320K CBR AAC file takes up more physical space on a hard drive than a 320K CBR MP3?

BTW, none of those files were tagged. They were just the compressed files directly out of the encoders.

 

[3lusiv3]

Quote:

Originally posted by br-- Here is another analogy for you, which stems from a popular riddle. If I am holding two five pound buckets, one filled with water, and the other filled with molasses, which one is heavier? They are both five pounds so they are the same weight. Here, both files are the same bitrate so they result in the same filesize. Hopefully you understand now.

That analogy doesn't hold true here. The "wrappers" are different. You should be saying one bucket is thin platsic and one is thick metal, of different weight. The content is of different type, but if the same weight. So you end up with different weights in the final weigh-in (filesize).

 

[br--]

MP3 files and AAC files encoded at an equal bitrate will produce a file equal in size. The reason why your AAC file is larger is because of metadata, not because AAC takes up more space (which doesn't even make any sense if you read what I wrote above).

It is possible to encode raw MP3 and AAC at the same bitrate, and get a very similar file size. AAC requires more default metadata than MP3, so when you encode it with certain encoders the resulting file is slightly larger than MP3.

This is getting quite tiresome, but I want you to understand this. I will expand on the analogy above in an effort to explain this so you can grasp it. Lets say you have two buckets, one filled with 5 pounds of water, and one with 5 pounds of acid. The bucket with the acid requires some extra padding on the inside so the acid does not erode the bucket. Here, when measuring the fluids inside the buckets, they will be the exact same weight (5 pounds), but when measuring the buckets (with the fluids in it), one bucket will weigh 5 pounds + the weight of the bucket, and the other pound will weigh 5 pounds + the weight of the bucket + the padding on the inside.

It can't get any simpler than that. Windows sees a larger file because of the metadata in the AAC file that is not present in the MP3 file. It is not always like this. It is encoder dependant. If you still don't understand, perhaps someone else can explain it better than I.

 

[stark23x]

I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong. Metadata aside (which every OS will read, you failed to mention that), AAC is bigger at equal bitrates.

And your analogies are horrible, BTW. By your argument, there should be no filesize difference between a 500kb/s MPEG 1 video and a 500kb/s DivX video.

You're either deliberately misrepresenting what I'm saying or you just don't understand it. Whatever, I'm not really worried.

Bottom line for everyone else; AAC will not save you hard drive space unless you use a smaller bitrate than you would with an MP3.

 

[br--]

Quote:

By your argument, there should be no filesize difference between a 500kb/s MPEG 1 video and a 500kb/s DivX video.

You can not apply DivX to this senario because it is Variable Keyframe Interval and thus variable bitrate. Its like VBR MP3 sort of. But if I had two constant bit rate video files, like a 500kbps MPEG-1 file, and the 500kbps MPEG-2 file, they will be the exact same file size, save metadata.

I think the problem here stems from you not understanding what a bitrate is. A bitrate is defined as "The number of bits used to sample a signal per second". So if you are encoding 320kbps AAC, there will be 320 kilobits of data on your hard drive for every second. This is the same for MP3, for MPEG-1, for whatever really that has a constant bitrate. It's like having two 4 second songs in AAC and MP3. If they are both encoded at 1 megabyte per second, the resulting file size will be 4 megabytes for both files (aside from metadata).