noob question about lossless

[Specialzed]

AAC files are supposed to sound better than mp3's. But when I converted one of my songs to ACC in itunes the file was smaller than an mp3....? if it takes up less memory how can it be better quality?

 

[jeffreyl]

Converting won't make file "better" sounding. Ripping from CD, via dbPoweramp, (or other programs) and using a lossless encoder will give you a file that may sound better, depending on your source.

There are quite a number of threads relating to "lossless" and prorams to use for same.

iTunes now offers Iplus, downloading that is "higher quality" and there are also many threads that discuss this, too.

Good Luck with your quest for better sounding music.

jeffreyl

 

[mark2410]

bit rate

a 128k aac will be smaller than a 320k mp3

a 128k aac will sound slightly less crap to most people than a 128k mp3

the higher the bit rate the better the quality will be

 

[hypersoar]

AAC (along with most post-mp3 formats such as ogg and WMA) uses much more efficient compression than mp3. As a result, it can achieve similar quality at roughly half the bitrate.

AAC is not lossless. Lossless formats compress most songs to about 1/2 of their original size, though it varies heavily based on the song.

If you're converting your music from mp3 to AAC, you're actually decreasing the quality, even if you transcode it to a higher bitrate. Lossy compression inherently introduces degradation from the original copy, whatever it is, much like taking successive photocopies will decrease quality.

 

[Young Spade]

Generally: Higher bitrate = higher SQ (not all the time though).

But IMO, if you are going to be buying your music from iTunes Plus, I would just go ahead and get the actual CD, that way you can rip it into a lossless format or whatever and have even better quality.

 

[uraflit]

short answer: file size is not necessarily equal to sound quality

 

[krmathis]

File size (bitrate) don't always reflect sound quality. For a lossy codec that is.
...and converting for MP3 to AAC is a bit no-no. Since you re-encode an already lossy encoded file, leading to additional data loss.

 

[ph0rk]

The "default" settings for AAC conversion in itunes is 128kbps CBR (constant bitrate), iirc. You probably had an mp3 in a higher bitrate - the AAC "edge" is slight - even a 160 kbps mp3 (if encoded well) may well sound more transparent than a 128k AAC.

For most purposes, 256k CBR or VBR (variable bit rate) in either mp3 or AAC will sound transparent (indistinguishable from the CD) - there may be a handful of "killer samples" out there - songs with a 4 or 5 second clip that has a noticable sound to it once encoded to AAC or MP3, but at that bitrate you'd have to listen many times to identify it, especially if you don't know what to look for.

This is probably in the wrong forum, I'd suggest computer audio

 

[linhlh]

Never convert from lossy to lossy format. It will decrease sound quality for sure.

 

[brandnewgame]

Easy explanation of the declining steps of quality:

Music company has the original mix which was hopefully recorded decently and stored higher than CD's 44.1KHz 16bit, either in analogue or higher rated digital.
-down-
Mix is 'mastered' onto CD, which is 44KHz 16bit. In modern times this process usually also involves lots of added compression which ruins the original dynamics (range of volume and also overall musical timbres when instruments are compressed together).
Mix is also often mastered onto vinyl which can't handle the modern compression (the indents in the plastic become too large and the head of the turntable has trouble remaining inside them) and therefore turns out to have better overall quality than compressed CDs.
Other audiophile digital formats exist such as DVD-A and SACD which have higher digital rates than CDs and generally are geared at a market who don't like modern compression.
-down-
People who own the CD can compress the 44KHz 16bit digital representation into various formats which involves reducing the file sizes. Some compression (lossless) is like a zip archive, the archive shrinks the original contents, though when decompressed the original contents remain unaltered, other compression (lossy) intentionally strips the audio of as much it can trying to preserve the original quality, though the original accurately defined representation of the audio is no longer present. Newer lossy codecs, ogg speex aac wma, are more clever than the older mp3 at discarding less important parts of the sound/representing the compressed sound more efficiently. The smaller you go, the more of the original accurate definition is thrown away.
Vinyl owners can convert to digital, though often choose higher digital rates than CD because vinyl is capable of greater dynamics. They also have the choice of lossless or lossy.
-down-
People can choose to compress further. If their original file is lossless, then they can convert between other lossless formats retaining the original quality or they can convert to a lossy codec, providing the same results as straight from CD to lossy.
If their original file is lossy encoded, then this file which has been reduced in size (as much as possible) and quality (as little as possible) by throwing away information not considered important according to one efficient method (or codec) is then put through another method which has its own rules for throwing away information. This results in a jumble of lacking data which inevitably degrades quality.

Sorry, that was more drawn out than I intended it to be

 

[paaj]

AAC is not lossless.
Go to preferences (or whatever it is called in Windows),
find 'import settings',
select Apple Lossless Encoder,
click OK,
check error correction,
re-rip your CDs

Don't re-encode mp3's to Lossless, just makes them bigger.
smallest lossless file I have is 326kb/s (and that is a 30min track with just about only silence

)