Should I convert MP3's TO AAC

GO TO ADMIN PANEL > ADD-ONS AND INSTALL VERTIFORO SIDEBAR TO SEE FORUMS AND SIDEBAR

AndyH

New member
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
4,868
Points
0
Location
Philly 'burbs
crazyonskis said:
what about if i encode my 192 mp3's to 128 aac?
Yup, you'll lose some quality there too as you're doing two encodings on the file, with data being removed during both encodings.
 

j0equ1nn

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
1
Points
0
why not?

If I convert some music from mp3 to aac in iTunes and then play them next to each other I really can't notice the difference in the sound. Presumably there is one but you'd have to try really hard to notice, and that's when you play them next to each other. With nothing to compare to I expect you would not find anything wrong with the aac version at all.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the obvious space advantage (or if they did I didn't see it). For instance a 9.4mb mp3 track becomes an 8mb aac track. That's just a hair above 85% the size. My iTunes library (of mp3s) is currently 111.96gb. If you do the math, this means that if I converted it all to aac files it would be 95.29gb. Extra gigabytes is a plus.

The only reason I can see not to do it is because of compatibility issues.
 

kornchild2002

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
12,203
Points
0
Location
Cincinnati
You can do exactly the same thing by converting your current mp3 files to smaller mp3 files using a lower bitrate with the LAME mp3 encoder. It has absolutely nothing to do with AAC but rather the bitrate being used to encode the AAC files. A 128kbps AAC file is going to take up the same amount of space as a 128kbps mp3 file. Bitrate is bitrate irregardless of format. I'm not sure why you bumped a 9 year old thread to make your statement.

Now, it is true that many people cannot distinguish between a lossy-to-lossy transcoded file and the source lossy file. That's perfectly fine and they can perform the lossy-to-lossy transcode all they want. However, if they can't distinguish between that, the probability of them properly distinguishing between the source lossless content and a 128kbps AAC file are very, very slim. They would be better off just re-ripping all of their CDs to a lossless format and then transcoding to 128kbps AAC for iDevice syncing. That would save a lot more space than going from 9.11 MB to 8MB (which sounds like going from 320kbps to 256kbps) and produce better audible results than having bloated lossy-to-lossy transcoded files.
 

Wikitila

New member
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Messages
2
Points
0
Location
New York
If after you have converted your MP3s you have ended up with M4A files then don’t worry, you just selected ‘Apple lossless‘ format instead of AAC. Try again or if you no longer have your MP3s then convert from M4A to AAC, iTunes will do that as well.
 

kornchild2002

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
12,203
Points
0
Location
Cincinnati
*.m4a files can be either mpeg-4 AAC lossy files or Apple lossless files. So your post makes no sense as it is impossible to distinguish between the two without looking at metadata.
 

jijitina

New member
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
8
Points
0
The sound becomes worse when I convert a mp3 file to aac on line. But it's better when I convert with my Aneesoft media converter. I don't know why.
 

kornchild2002

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
12,203
Points
0
Location
Cincinnati
Placebo affect, that is what you are suffering from. Unless you can backup those claims with using volume-matched, same bitrate files used in a blind ABX test, your claims fail due to the placebo affect.
 
Top