tgidesign
05-26-2003, 04:36 PM
I have to say that I almost went insane encoding my library to AAC. I was sckeptical as were others but I wanted to see how it would sound. So I did a few albums first, than I was hooked! It was only 1 week ago that I undertook this task and I can now say that I am so far verry happy with the results!!
: )
Much of my music was encoded as AAC directly from CD's but I also had many downloaded MP3's. (1000 + MP3 Tracks)
I will end the debate now. Music encoded as an AAC file directly from an Audio Cd sounds better than the AAC's encoded from MP3's or better than Mp3's encoded directly from Audio CD's even at 160 or 190 Bitrate. Duh
If you have got your MP3's encoded at 160 or 190 Bitrate and you convert them to AAC as far as I can tell, you should notice no degradation in the sound. At least I haven't! If your MP3's are lower in bitrate then they are obviously not going to be as good as the standard 128 AAC, but they as well should not be degraded in sound. You will just end up with an AAC file, at lets say 64 bitrate, etc.
Either way, if your a MAC user and you use an iPod, I would reccommend encoding as AAC. As some others have said you get more tracks for the room. I got 1250 songs encoded as AAC to fit onto my girlfriend's 5 gb iPod. Yes that's right! I've got more than the predicted 2000 on my own 10 Gb and i"m loving it.
But even moee importantly, and not mentioned as much is the better quality audio. (Mpeg 4) In my opinion AAC just sounds better. Period. So not only is it a smaller file size but it is a better sounds, especially on tracks encoded directly from an Audio CD.
It took me 4 1/2 days straight to do my library.
But i'm not stupid either. I have kept ALL of my MP3's (in case I decide at some point to switch back) and I would reccommend that to anyone who has the room on a back up hard drive.
Oh yeah and then there's finding all of the cover art! I reccommend using Amazon for this. If you don't care about being this anal retentive than I completely understand but I have been able to get almost all the art work for my 2000 plus song library!
That, I'm still working on!
Other users have noted these issues, my opinions on them:
*Static in songs: I haven't noticed at all.
*AAC +: Wouldn't wait around. AAC is good enough and with AAC + you will almost definitiely have a larger file size, defeating the purpose of encoding at all.
*Encoding MP3's in iTunes: I used iTunes for everything. Wouldn't waste your time looking for other software until rivaling software exists.
*160 kb AAC?? What? Why would you waste your time encoding MP3's or Audio CD's to 160 KB AAC??? Larger file size, quality is almost the same! Generally 500-750Kb per file more for a 160 versus as 128. That's a lot when you multiply it by 2000 or 10,000, (at least this is what I have found in my tests)
I hope this info helps those who are thinking of diving into AAC. I surely like it!
TiBook G4 500, G4 Tower, iPod 10 Gb, 1400CS
: )
Much of my music was encoded as AAC directly from CD's but I also had many downloaded MP3's. (1000 + MP3 Tracks)
I will end the debate now. Music encoded as an AAC file directly from an Audio Cd sounds better than the AAC's encoded from MP3's or better than Mp3's encoded directly from Audio CD's even at 160 or 190 Bitrate. Duh
If you have got your MP3's encoded at 160 or 190 Bitrate and you convert them to AAC as far as I can tell, you should notice no degradation in the sound. At least I haven't! If your MP3's are lower in bitrate then they are obviously not going to be as good as the standard 128 AAC, but they as well should not be degraded in sound. You will just end up with an AAC file, at lets say 64 bitrate, etc.
Either way, if your a MAC user and you use an iPod, I would reccommend encoding as AAC. As some others have said you get more tracks for the room. I got 1250 songs encoded as AAC to fit onto my girlfriend's 5 gb iPod. Yes that's right! I've got more than the predicted 2000 on my own 10 Gb and i"m loving it.
But even moee importantly, and not mentioned as much is the better quality audio. (Mpeg 4) In my opinion AAC just sounds better. Period. So not only is it a smaller file size but it is a better sounds, especially on tracks encoded directly from an Audio CD.
It took me 4 1/2 days straight to do my library.
But i'm not stupid either. I have kept ALL of my MP3's (in case I decide at some point to switch back) and I would reccommend that to anyone who has the room on a back up hard drive.
Oh yeah and then there's finding all of the cover art! I reccommend using Amazon for this. If you don't care about being this anal retentive than I completely understand but I have been able to get almost all the art work for my 2000 plus song library!
That, I'm still working on!
Other users have noted these issues, my opinions on them:
*Static in songs: I haven't noticed at all.
*AAC +: Wouldn't wait around. AAC is good enough and with AAC + you will almost definitiely have a larger file size, defeating the purpose of encoding at all.
*Encoding MP3's in iTunes: I used iTunes for everything. Wouldn't waste your time looking for other software until rivaling software exists.
*160 kb AAC?? What? Why would you waste your time encoding MP3's or Audio CD's to 160 KB AAC??? Larger file size, quality is almost the same! Generally 500-750Kb per file more for a 160 versus as 128. That's a lot when you multiply it by 2000 or 10,000, (at least this is what I have found in my tests)
I hope this info helps those who are thinking of diving into AAC. I surely like it!
TiBook G4 500, G4 Tower, iPod 10 Gb, 1400CS