[kugino]

can someone tell me whether these two scenarios would be significantly different? i've been told that no. 2 would be significantly better:

1. 128AAC->CDDA->256mp3
2. 128AAC->CDDA->256AAC

the argument i've heard is that you obviously gain nothing going from 128aac->256aac, but reripping from 128aac->256mp3 would be even worse than the 256AAC? is this right?

(i would never do this, btw...just trying to settle a disagreement)

 

[RotAtoR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kugino the argument i've heard is that you obviously gain nothing going from 128aac->256aac, but reripping from 128aac->256mp3 would be even worse than the 256AAC? is this right?

256kbps mp3 would probably be worse to the extent that it's normally worse than 256kbps aac. I'm not aware of any "benefits" of transcoding from aac to aac rather than to mp3. Either way, from a 128kbps aac source I'd imagine it's going to sound pretty bad.

 

[cosmopragma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kugino 2 would be significantly better: 1. 128AAC->CDDA->256mp3 2. 128AAC->CDDA->256AAC

That's right. Quote:

the argument i've heard is that you obviously gain nothing going from 128aac->256aac]

Again right, but that's not the point.
More important is that you will loose nothing. Quote:

but reripping from 128aac->256mp3 would be even worse than the 256AAC? is this right?

Exactly.
The aac and the mp3 codec do implement different psychoacoustical models.Not totally different, but different enough to cause the 256 kbit mp3 to sound worse than the 128 Kbit aac.

 

[Chri5peed]

In either case you'd end up with a larger file of 128K quality. But the AAC might be twice as big while the mp3 would be twice as big as that.

You can't create sound quality from nowhere.

Using the term 'reripping' confuses me. That suggests using the CD, which is an entirely different matter.