AAC - Opinions?

[asdfg]

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?

[Andy Hewitt]

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

[Kurt Albershardt]

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.

[Stimpy]

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

[Kevin McMurtrie]

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.

[Pete.]

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

[Ralph Barone]

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.

[Sander]

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

[Andy Hewitt]

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

[Philip Meech]

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
>
>
>