Become a member of the iLounge Forums. Register Now!
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Forum FAQ and Forum Policy.

Topic: best sounding format

Reply Thread Tools Topic Search
 
Old 11-22-2004, 05:01 PM
#1
 
Senior Lounger
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 182
best sounding format

hey everyone,

i have recently encoded all of my mp3 music in my library to 320 bitrate from around 128-192. the problem with this is that my music library has doubled. will this make the sound quality better, or will there be no diifference? also what fromat sounds better, aac or mp3?

thanks for your help.

regards,
ipaqman
ipaqman is offline  
Reply With Quote

Join the iLounge Community and the ad above will disappear.

Old 11-22-2004, 05:16 PM
#2
 
Intelligentleman
 
Doug Gilmour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not Brighton
Posts: 4,926

The best format in terms of universal usage and compatability would be Mp3. AAC however is a bit better than Mp3, but not as universal (if you're using only an iPod and iTunes for your audio this won't matter). As for the difference in sound betweent he 320kbps and 192kbps Mp3 files, that really depends on what headphones you're using. The sound quality will be pretty much the same with most headphones. Unless you have $300+ headphones you probably won't hear much of a difference... Even with top of the line equipment the difference isn't much.. 192 is a good size to pick, it gives an excellent compromise between file size and audio quality..

It also depends on how much space you are willing to sacrafice in terms of file size.. Basically I would stick with 192kbps files in Mp3 if you use other DAPs and other non-AAC programs. If you're only going with the iPod+iTunes combo and plan to keep it that way, then go for 160kbps or so in AAC.

-Dan
Doug Gilmour is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2004, 05:22 PM
#3
 
#######
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 143

I think it has something to do with when the recording was made and how it was made...

ALL discs before the mid 90's need to be above 128, I like 192 also, but only mp3...

Newer discs that are major label, and recorded well dont need top be above 128KBPS, IMO...

I have a hard time telling a difference in formats, only thing I notice is volume, older stuff is quieter unless you encode higher...
ericsgreen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2004, 05:40 PM
#4
 
Intelligentleman
 
Doug Gilmour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not Brighton
Posts: 4,926

Quote:
Originally posted by ericsgreen
I think it has something to do with when the recording was made and how it was made...

ALL discs before the mid 90's need to be above 128, I like 192 also, but only mp3...

Newer discs that are major label, and recorded well dont need top be above 128KBPS, IMO...
Hmm.. I'm not too sure about that.. I have the original "Brothers In Arms" album in CD by Dire Straits. This was one of the first albums to ever be recorded onto the CD format actually, and it sounds normal to me at 128kbps..

-Dan
Doug Gilmour is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2004, 07:05 PM
#5
 
Pro Lounger
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Melmac
Posts: 593

Pick the format that fits your needs the best. If you have an iPod and plan to only listen to your music on your iPod and computer then AAC could be a good choice for you. Almost all media players on the PC that I know of (except Windows Media Player) support the AAC format so you shouldn't encounter to many playback compatibility problems with AAC on the PC or Mac platforms.

If you plan on listening to your music on other devices such as DVD players with MP3 support or other MP3 players then obviously, you should choose MP3 as your format.

AAC sounds better at the same bit rate as MP3 but the sound quality difference is subjective. A 192 kbps MP3 should be transparent to most people's ears and 128 kbps is good enough for some. Do some listening tests of your own to decide which bit rate is best for your ears.




Portables: iPod Classic 80GB / iPod Shuffle 2G. 1GB / Motorola Droid 16GB
Rips: iTunes: 128 kbps AAC (VBR) | Downloads: Amazon MP3 / iTunes Store / CD Baby
OS: Mac OS X / Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
Links: My EAC Guide, My Digital Audio Formats Guide, Make Foobar2000 Look Like iTunes
Teqnilogik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2004, 11:49 AM
#6
 
UberGellin' Lounger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 996
Re: best sounding format

Quote:
Originally posted by ipaqman
i have recently encoded all of my mp3 music in my library to 320 bitrate from around 128-192.
Not sure if anyone caught this - did you re-rip or just convert? If you simply converted - then all you have done is increase the size of your collection and not the quality.

Cheers.



[shabbs]

iPods: 4G [40GB, 20GB] + 2G iPod Touch [16GB]
iPod audio: Sony MDR-EX71SL + MDR-V600 headphones, h/k go + play
MP3: EAC 0.99pb4 [secure] w/ Lame v3.98 [-V 0]
shabbs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2004, 12:21 PM
#7
 
#######
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 143

Quote:
Originally posted by shabbs
Not sure if anyone caught this - did you re-rip or just convert? If you simply converted - then all you have done is increase the size of your collection and not the quality.

Cheers.
I have dbpoweramp, I have converted up, size is almost exactly the same as the track reripped, and I think it is poosible to remove bits accoring to a formula and restore that track with the same formula.

But I dont think this is how it works now, you would be wastin time to use an re-encoder, you would need to rerip, at least some jsut to test and make sure it just isnt a space waster. As far as useing the same track to copy and copy I think you will get some degradation, jsut copy a file first then use that copy to manipulate whil leaving you originals untouched till you know what to do.

Good point shabbs, I think thats what this person did...Which is very relevant. I cant faind any difference in track upconverted, it is so hard to know for sure though...for the sppace I dont think it is worth it.

I would like to know what kinda buds and how big is ipaqmans library/ipod..
ericsgreen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2004, 10:29 PM
#8
 
Senior Lounger
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 182

i just got a 40gb ipod photo. i have 1500 songs. what i did was convert all of my mp3's to aac files. will the quality of the songs be increased, or will the quality of the songs be decreased. i have converted them in itunes from mp3 192 to mp3 320 and then to aac 192. i converted my library first from mp3 192 to mp3 320, but then saw that the size of my music library doubled and then converted my library to aac 192, because i have read that aac is better quality than mp3. if i have converted my songs more than once to different formats in itunes, will the quality of the songs be worse than if i just left them in mp3 format, how they were origionaly?

thanks for your help,
ipaqman
ipaqman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2004, 04:48 AM
#9
 
Junior Lounger
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Singapore
Posts: 60

Quote:
i have converted them in itunes from mp3 192 to mp3 320
Converting an existing MP3 file in to a higher bit rate doesn't do much good.

MP3 is a lossy compression format which means you throw away some information to have a smaller file size. When you decode this file some of the information is reconstructed (not the original information) so they may not be the same.

If you go on repeating this process, each new generation will deviate from its predecessor in terms of the sound information.

So when you encode a track at a lower speed first (ie. 192) and then re-encode it at higher speed you would not get back the information that you have left out when you encoded it at 192. What is lost is lost. What you would be doing is encoding a reconstructed version of the original track at a higher bit rate. So you cannot say that you will get better quality doing it this way.

If you really want to see the difference, you should re-rip the songs at 320 using the CD as the source not the 192 version.

So in summary I do not beleive that you can get better quality sound by re-encoding the existing compressed files at higher bit rates. You may get a perception of such but theoritically it just cannot be.



jk



~.~.~ 4G 40GB ~.~ XtreMac AirPlay ~.~ ABT iJet ~.~.~
jk2004 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2004, 09:04 AM
#10
 
#######
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 143

I agree with JK, but I think theoretically it is possible, but it probably isnt gonna work at this point in time, and not with mp3's.

See, with 1500 songs you could rerip your entire library in one afternoon. Tahts prolly, 125 discs, Maybe two afternoons. You should try one first...

I know , for you personally, youre not an audiophile, if you were youd know the answer and you would have already gone lossless...But you may be young enough and your ears may be sensitive enough to hear a difference, depends on your buds IMO

Try it with an your oldest, poor cd, and then try it with newer stuff, try rock, and jazz...It may be worth it for you to only reencode the tracks that are noticeably queiter than most and hope you get a little more out of them, you have all the space in the world, so try some WAV or some kinda of lossless...

I am not a huge audio guy, I constanty need space, so that is my main thought when buying or encoding music...

I go 128 for anything newish (late 90's to present, less its indie or live boots. Most live stuff i do tend to go 320, just cause you get NO sound from bootlegs. Independent label-type things and music very special to me get 192...but that is all space related, I if had room I would go lossless, you could always use an encoder to go down in bitrate...and then have multiple album copies to chose from...

Jsut curious, what encoder did you get?
ericsgreen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2004, 09:06 AM
#11
 
#######
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 143

I agree with JK, but I think theoretically it is possible, but it probably isnt gonna work at this point in time, and not with mp3's.

See, with 1500 songs you could rerip your entire library in one afternoon. Tahts prolly, 125 discs, Maybe two afternoons. You should try one first...

I know , for you personally, youre not an audiophile, if you were youd know the answer and you would have already gone lossless...But you may be young enough and your ears may be sensitive enough to hear a difference, depends on your buds IMO

Try it with an your oldest, poor cd, and then try it with newer stuff, try rock, and jazz...It may be worth it for you to only reencode the tracks that are noticeably queiter than most and hope you get a little more out of them, you have all the space in the world, so try some WAV or some kinda of lossless...

I am not a huge audio guy, I constanty need space, so that is my main thought when buying or encoding music...

I go 128 for anything newish (late 90's to present, less its indie or live boots. Most live stuff i do tend to go 320, just cause you get NO sound from bootlegs. Independent label-type things and music very special to me get 192...but that is all space related, I if had room I would go lossless, you could always use an encoder to go down in bitrate...and then have multiple album copies to chose from...

Jsut curious, what encoder did you get?
ericsgreen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2004, 09:24 AM
#12
 
Junior Lounger
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Singapore
Posts: 60

Just to add some hints to the discussion:

My personal preference is the LAME encoder at 192kbps which gives a good compromise between quality and file size. I do have a lot of tracks that were ripped at 128 also.

I also beleive that the effort of re-ripping will not really give me a big benefit since whole objective of me buying the iPod was to have ready access to all my music instead of digging through a big pile of CDs that I have. I can compromise the quality for the convenience here.

Lot of people are under the impression that LAME encoder gives a good sound quality. And LAME is free.

Give it a try if you haven't already.

http://mitiok.cjb.net/

I use LAME with CDex available at http://www.cdex.n3.net/

jk



~.~.~ 4G 40GB ~.~ XtreMac AirPlay ~.~ ABT iJet ~.~.~
jk2004 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2004, 03:46 AM
#13
 
PeacePod
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 453

MPC sounds the best.

as far as AAC vs. MP3, once transparency (where average listers/equipment cannot tell the differennce between compressed and original) is reached, either codec works fine. Although --alt-preset standard (~190 Kbps) is considered transparent for mp3, and 128~ for AAC, either/or would sound the same at this theoretical level.

So in conclusion, no codec will sound better than the other if the bitrate is high enough, and as far as your paremeters go (128-192), AAC would suit you fine if you're looking for space saving, although i'd rip @ 160 AAC just to be safe.



War & Famine IS Over.
If WE wants it.
My Blog
stasyna is offline  
Reply With Quote

Topic: best sounding format

Reply Thread Tools Topic Search

Become a member of the iLounge Forums. Register Now!
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Forum FAQ and Forum Policy.
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On





View iLounge History. Read our old Forums Archive (2001-2003)
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:27 AM.


Shop for Accessories: Cases, speakers, chargers, etc.