AAC Bit Rate Preference?

[iObsessed]

Hello,

Long time fan of the forum, suprisingly mature in comparison to much of the trash on the internet.

Anyways, My question is in regards to the AAC format. In your opinions, what is the optimal Bit Rate to record at, maintaining an ideal balance of quality and storage space.

Also, how exactly do MP3 and AAC compare in terms of quality?
i.e. 128 KBS AAC = ? MP3, etc.

Thanks for the replies.

[dcx693]

Take a look in the digital formats section of the forums, you'll see more threads like this there. You'll also get lots of opinions. Generally, it all depends on you. Most people agree that AAC at a given bitrate is better than mp3 at the same.

[fasterthanlight]

yes, you can't directly compare AAC to MP3 regarding quality
you must factor in size
so i would compare the two like so:
5mb 128KBs AAC vs. ?? 128KBs MP3

[d33t3r]

personally i just use the standard 128k AAC encoding. i couldn't tell the difference between 128 AAC and 160 MP3 even using grado SR60's and some seriously old-school yamahas amped out the wazoo. also, i have an original 5 gig ipod, so i'm trying to make every meg count.

[dcx693]

At the same bit rate, AAC and mp3 files are about the same size.

[Fiddytree]

i have a preference of 160 aac. to me, 128 is too muffled and i can greatly tell the difference between the cd and 128.

[Aricbaker]

According to the inventor of both MP3 and AAC, 128k AAC is about equal to 160k MP3. (He was on Tech TV's The Screen Savers a few nights ago).

For really good sounding files, he suggested either 160 or 192k MP3 or 160 AAC...

[Mudskipper]

I use Nero's 'transparent' setting. 110-150kb/s

It doesn't stick strictly to a 150 boundary though, some songs peek at just over 200kb/s. I encoded the same song at all the various presets in Nero and if I recall the 'transparent' files weren't much larger than the standard 128kb/s ones.

For me this setting was the ideal compromise between sound quality and file size. And generally I much prefer the sound of AAC in comparison to mp3, it sounds closer to the CD to my ears.

[iObsessed]

Thanks for the responses,

I've been listening to some samples I've ripped, and I think I'll be going with the 160 kbs AAC. It's "Transparant" enough for my ears, anyways.

iObsessed

[LagunaSol]

I figure, why rip twice? I have plenty of space, so I'm doing AAC 224. Hard drive capacities are only going to get bigger, so rip with the future in mind. I usually regret when I rip at a lower bitrate and end up doing everything again. I ripped everything in iTunes MP3 192, realized that didn't sound very good, then went to LAME Extreme. Which sounds pretty darn fine. AAC 224 is perhaps a bit better, at similar file sizes, and much faster encoding, speed (LAME is SLOW) so that's the sweet spot for me.

[steelraven15]

iRip at 96 kbps AAC, iDunno, call me crazy...

[dcx693]

crazy

[bracken]

Originally posted by fasterthanlight
5mb 128KBs AAC vs. ?? 128KBs MP3

KBps = Kilobytes (1024 bytes) per second (binary)
kBps = kilobytes (1000 bytes) per second (decimal)

Kbps = Kilobits (1024 bits) per second (binary)
kbps = kilobits (1000 bits) per second (decimal) <-- This is standard.

kbps is how many thousand "bits," or pieces of data, the file has for each second. So, 128kbps AAC is the same size as 128kbps MP3.

Everyone has their own opinion depending on their ears, their brain, the music they listen to, the encoder they use, and the player they use but I find that 128kbps AAC is the best for size/quality for a portable player on the go.

[Jrbmoran]

Originally posted by steelraven15
iRip at 96 kbps AAC, iDunno, call me crazy...

do you hear a difference but you need to fit more songs? or is 96 acceptably good for you? i think i'm gonna try it too

[steelraven15]

I compared it to the other mp3's that i had, and found that it sounded like the same quality as them, but was much smaller.