View Full Version : aac vs mp3
felpot
10-16-2003, 04:58 PM
now that itunes is available to windows users, just wondering is aac that much better that it would be worthwhile to convert all my mp3s to aac. how much more space does it save if you use the same encoding level? thanks
If you are currently encoding in 128kbps mp3 and move to 128kpbs AAC, you save exactly no space. But you should get better sound quality in that same amount of space.
felpot
10-16-2003, 05:10 PM
i just realized how dumb of a question that was....
SpideyPod
10-16-2003, 05:20 PM
So far I am very impressed with AAC. Sounds great!
fasterthanlight
10-16-2003, 06:16 PM
ya aac is wicked, same quality... smaller file
ZepHead21
10-16-2003, 06:50 PM
Which sounds better - 320kbps MP3 or 320kbps AAC?
Call me crazy, but I seem to recall reading that MP3 was preferred at these higher bitrates.
SoloMalee
10-23-2003, 05:33 PM
Hi all, first post here, so forgive me if my questions seem obvious.
I just downloaded iTunes for Windows, I have to say, what a sweet front end - Good Job Apple!
Anyway, some quirks, or is this just how it is...
I encoded the same song in AAC and MP3 and got these results.
MP3 6Mb file 320Kbs VBR
AAC 6Mb file 320Kbs (in fact this was a few Kbytes bigger)
MP3 7+Mb file 500+Kbs VBR (Using Lame and Audiocrusher)
First question, other CDs i've ripped with Audiocrusher and the Lame encoder have a VBR bit rate way higher than 320Kbs...why is that?
Second question, it's hard to tell the difference, but am I to assume that the AAC at the same size as the MP3 is the superior quality file?
If so, how would a 320Kbs AAC file compare to a 500+Kbs VBR file RIPed using the Lame encoder.
I know some of this is subjective, but reading the items about archiving for the future makes me want to be sure I set out in the right direction. If that means that 500+Kbs VBR MP3s are the better option then I'll head that-a-way.
Thanks in advance
Solomalee
JustinC
10-23-2003, 10:26 PM
now that itunes is available to windows users, just wondering is aac that much better that it would be worthwhile to convert all my mp3s to aac. how much more space does it save if you use the same encoding level? thanks
Not trying to nitpick, but don't convert your mp3s to aac - the resulting aac will be of worse quality than either file ripped from the original CD (or wav, or another lossless format).
Remember that when using a compression scheme that's lossey, you can't convert to another losey format without losing what *both* formats consider expendable data...
br0adband
10-26-2003, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by SoloMalee
MP3 6Mb file 320Kbs VBA
AAC 6Mb file 320Kbs (in fact this was a few Kbytes bigger)
MP3 7+Mb file 500+Kbs VBA (Using Lame and Audiocrusher)
First question, other CDs i've ripped with Audiocrusher and the Lame encoder have a VBA bit rate way higher than 320Kbs...why is that?
Second question, it's hard to tell the difference, but am I to assume that the AAC at the same size as the MP3 is the superior quality file?
If so, how would a 320Kbs AAC file compare to a 500+Kbs VBA file RIPed using the Lame encoder.
I know some of this is subjective, but reading the items about archiving for the future makes me want to be sure I set out in the right direction. If that means that 500+Kbs VBA MP3s are the better option then I'll head that-a-way.
Thanks in advance
Solomalee
Not sure what you mean by "VBA" but I'll take a shot in the dark and guess you mean "VBR" for Variable Bit Rate(s). I don't even know what AudioCrusher is so I'll pass on that one.
Since I'm preaching AAC these days the answer to question two is that AAC does sound better at the same bitrate than an MP3 file (even a LAME encoded one). This appears to be a highly subjective and personal opinion; however most people that are using AAC files at 128Kbps wholeheartedly agree that they sound better than any 128Kbps encoded MP3 they've ever heard - yes, even better than a LAME encoded 128Kbps CBR (Constant Bit Rate) file.
Hey, it was bound to happen at some point: some new compression scheme (or at least a more efficient one) pops in and trounces the competition.
Again, it's all subjective: You may think an MP3 at 128Kbps blows the doors off an AAC at 128Kbps, but so far the majority of people are at least trying AAC so that's a big plus.
br0adband
SpideyPod
10-26-2003, 07:50 AM
I agree, that to my ears at least AAC sounds better than the MP3 format, even a LAME encoded MP3.
I would like to see AAC (not necessarily AAC w/ Apple's FairPlay DRM scheme, just AAC) adopted on more MP3 devices as I rather not spend all my time encoding music in AAC and I am forever locked into Apple devices.
Not to say I am not thrilled with the current selection of Apple devices at all. I love both my iPods, but I like to have choice later on down the road and as it stands now MP3 is still the standard supported everywhere so for now I am going with that.
But AAC has the kind of crisp sound at low bit rates that all encoders of MP3's have been missing. IMHO of course!
SoloMalee
10-27-2003, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by br0adband
Not sure what you mean by "VBA" but I'll take a shot in the dark and guess you mean "VBR" for Variable Bit Rate(s)...
Hi, thanks for the feedback, I did mean VBR (good guess!).
Based on Spidey's comments though, I think I'm going to carry on with my High Bitrate MP3s for the moment. I think I'll convert those to AAC and see what they sound like later.
Thanks again
br0adband
10-27-2003, 08:43 AM
No problem. As I stated in another thread floating around here on the Forums I personally will be encoding all new content with iTunes and AAC at 224Kbps from now on. 128Kbps sounds just fine to my ears and I can't hear a difference between the two bitrates anyway - so I had to make a decision. I read some reviews/tests that came from people whose opinions I trust and came to the 224Kbps choice as the most logical.
The file sizes aren't that much larger between 128Kbps and 224Kbps so I'll be happy either way.
br0adband
SoloMalee
10-29-2003, 08:55 AM
For what it's worth, I've had to convert a whole bunch of my VBR MP3s to AAC. I chose the max bitrate of 320Kbs and they all sound great...
yep, that's right... CD => VBR MP3 => AAC 320Kbs
Don't ask why I did this, ...I had a whole bunch of faulty ID3 tags, the easiest fix was conversion to AAC. I'm now ripping direct to AAC (When I started I didn't have iTunes).
All the tracks sound great, my 'ordinary ears' can't tell the difference to the original CD :)
When MP3's were first introduced, we were under the impression that 128kbps was CD quality, then Microsoft told us that WMA 96kbps was cd quality, Sound quality is very subjective, I currently rip at AAC 192kbps, because my ears can't tell the difference between that and an audio CD, so why should I rip at 320Kbps.
Decide yourself by ripping at different bitrates in different formats, do not choose a higher bitrate unless you can actually hear the difference yourself.
SoloMalee
10-30-2003, 04:13 AM
I know I'm wasting some space, but I decided to RIP at the max, so that if I convert formats later on, I lose less in the conversion between one lossy format and the next. (I hope this is correct otherwise I'm gonna cry)
I know, I could RIP to WAVs or AIFs or whatever, but I don't have *that much* disk space ;) to store all my CDs in those formats.
When I transfer to iPod, sometime in the future, I guess I'll transfer at a lower bitrate (probably 128 or so).
Sam Williams
11-03-2003, 09:01 PM
I'm currently replacing the last few 128k MP3s in my collection with --aps rips. There's so much uncertainty over AAC and the impending format wars that MP3 seems the safest option for now.
It probably is, but if another major player jumps in to Apple's bandwagon, things will change. For example, if Sony, the largest portable player of them all, jumps onto ACC, it will be the biggest and only thing.
Waltzzz
11-04-2003, 04:12 AM
Question: When I use iTunes to rip using AAC does that then add some sort of DRM to the tracks? I imagine no, but I am always suspicious of some sort of spy wear etc.
SoloMalee
11-04-2003, 05:10 AM
I thought I read that only the iTune store AACs had some kind of DRM built in. The ones you RIP yourself don't.
SpideyPod
11-04-2003, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by Waltzzz
Question: When I use iTunes to rip using AAC does that then add some sort of DRM to the tracks? I imagine no, but I am always suspicious of some sort of spy wear etc.
No DRM is added when ripping tracks off your own CD's in AAC.
Only those tracks purchased from ITMS have the FairPlay DRM implemented.