Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
asdfg
 
Posts: n/a
Default AAC - Opinions?

I have an MP3 player capable of playing AAC format as well as MP3. All of my
music in currently in MP3 format.

Should I convert my MP3 files to a slightly lower bitrate AAC? Is 96kbps AAC
any good? - because if I converted tracks to that I'd get a lot more on my
player.

Overall, what are people's opinions of AAC?


  #2   Report Post  
Andy Hewitt
 
Posts: n/a
Default

asdfg wrote:

I have an MP3 player capable of playing AAC format as well as MP3. All of my
music in currently in MP3 format.

Should I convert my MP3 files to a slightly lower bitrate AAC? Is 96kbps AAC
any good? - because if I converted tracks to that I'd get a lot more on my
player.

Overall, what are people's opinions of AAC?


AAC is supposed to be a little better than MP3, although it's still a
'lossy' compression.

Why 96kbps? iTunes Music Store uses 128kbps, and having burnt a few to
CD now, I have to say I can't fault the sound quality.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Civic 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com
  #3   Report Post  
Kurt Albershardt
 
Posts: n/a
Default

asdfg wrote:
I have an MP3 player capable of playing AAC format as well as MP3. All of my
music in currently in MP3 format.

Should I convert my MP3 files to a slightly lower bitrate AAC? Is 96kbps AAC
any good? - because if I converted tracks to that I'd get a lot more on my
player.


If by convert you mean reencode from the original CDs or WAV files then yes, it would probably net you better sound or less space (maybe both depending on the rates you chose and the particular MP3 codec.)

If you mean convert starting with the existing MP3's I'd pass--the multiple compressions increase your chances of artifacts.




  #4   Report Post  
Stimpy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

asdfg wrote:
I have an MP3 player capable of playing AAC format as well as MP3.
All of my music in currently in MP3 format.

Should I convert my MP3 files to a slightly lower bitrate AAC? Is
96kbps AAC any good? - because if I converted tracks to that I'd get
a lot more on my player.

Overall, what are people's opinions of AAC?


IMHO? Slightly better than MP3 but not so much better as to be worth the
lack of portability. Personally, I'm sticking with 320kbps mp3 for
commercially available releases and FLAC for b**tlegs


  #5   Report Post  
Kevin McMurtrie
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "asdfg"
wrote:

I have an MP3 player capable of playing AAC format as well as MP3. All of my
music in currently in MP3 format.

Should I convert my MP3 files to a slightly lower bitrate AAC? Is 96kbps AAC
any good? - because if I converted tracks to that I'd get a lot more on my
player.

Overall, what are people's opinions of AAC?


AAC degrades more gracefully than a typical MP3 encoding. AAC becomes
muddy and shallow at low bit rates while MP3 squeals and rings. If you
must use a bitrate as low as 96Kbps, AAC will not sound nearly as bad.
I'd recommend 128Kbps AAC but it depends on the type of music.


  #6   Report Post  
Pete.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I don't like the 128kb/s AAC files that iTunes sell, I only wish they'd up
the bitrate a bit. Most of the CD's I have imported to iTunes are in 192kb/s
and that I am happy with.


"Andy Hewitt" wrote in message
...
asdfg wrote:

I have an MP3 player capable of playing AAC format as well as MP3. All of
my
music in currently in MP3 format.

Should I convert my MP3 files to a slightly lower bitrate AAC? Is 96kbps
AAC
any good? - because if I converted tracks to that I'd get a lot more on
my
player.

Overall, what are people's opinions of AAC?


AAC is supposed to be a little better than MP3, although it's still a
'lossy' compression.

Why 96kbps? iTunes Music Store uses 128kbps, and having burnt a few to
CD now, I have to say I can't fault the sound quality.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Civic 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com



  #7   Report Post  
Ralph Barone
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Pete." wrote:

I don't like the 128kb/s AAC files that iTunes sell, I only wish they'd up
the bitrate a bit. Most of the CD's I have imported to iTunes are in 192kb/s
and that I am happy with.


"Andy Hewitt" wrote in message
...
asdfg wrote:

I have an MP3 player capable of playing AAC format as well as MP3. All of
my
music in currently in MP3 format.

Should I convert my MP3 files to a slightly lower bitrate AAC? Is 96kbps
AAC
any good? - because if I converted tracks to that I'd get a lot more on
my
player.

Overall, what are people's opinions of AAC?


AAC is supposed to be a little better than MP3, although it's still a
'lossy' compression.

Why 96kbps? iTunes Music Store uses 128kbps, and having burnt a few to
CD now, I have to say I can't fault the sound quality.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Civic 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com


More to the point, if you reencode an MP3 file as an AAC file, it will
likely sound worse than the original MP3 file, regardless of what bit
rate you chose. Running lossy compression codecs in series is a bad
idea. Now if you want to reencode your original CDs into AAC format,
that's a different question, and one worth asking.
  #8   Report Post  
Sander
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

If you mean convert starting with the existing MP3's I'd pass--the
multiple compressions increase your chances of artifacts.


You can remove "chances of" from that sentence, especially at these low
bitrates.

Sander
  #9   Report Post  
Andy Hewitt
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ralph Barone wrote:

snip
More to the point, if you reencode an MP3 file as an AAC file, it will
likely sound worse than the original MP3 file, regardless of what bit
rate you chose. Running lossy compression codecs in series is a bad
idea. Now if you want to reencode your original CDs into AAC format,
that's a different question, and one worth asking.


Absolutely.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Civic 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com
  #10   Report Post  
Philip Meech
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The highest quality is uncompressed, .aiff. How many hours are you going
to listen to?

Pete. wrote:

I don't like the 128kb/s AAC files that iTunes sell, I only wish they'd up
the bitrate a bit. Most of the CD's I have imported to iTunes are in 192kb/s
and that I am happy with.


"Andy Hewitt" wrote in message
...

asdfg wrote:


I have an MP3 player capable of playing AAC format as well as MP3. All of
my
music in currently in MP3 format.

Should I convert my MP3 files to a slightly lower bitrate AAC? Is 96kbps
AAC
any good? - because if I converted tracks to that I'd get a lot more on
my
player.

Overall, what are people's opinions of AAC?


AAC is supposed to be a little better than MP3, although it's still a
'lossy' compression.

Why 96kbps? iTunes Music Store uses 128kbps, and having burnt a few to
CD now, I have to say I can't fault the sound quality.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Civic 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com




Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wharfdale Opinions Dinsdale Audio Opinions 2 March 7th 04 08:12 AM
Opinions on Sub fr335tyl3r Car Audio 2 January 3rd 04 02:25 AM
Opinions on a digital audio workstation? Jimmy Lee Pro Audio 3 November 28th 03 06:04 PM
sub $2000 rackmount mixer for project studio -- mic pre opinions Straatocastoer Pro Audio 7 November 26th 03 03:31 PM
Opinions on M&K 5.1 monitors Daryn Barry Pro Audio 0 August 8th 03 06:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:42 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"