Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Wharfdale Opinions | Audio Opinions | |||
Opinions on Sub | Car Audio | |||
Opinions on a digital audio workstation? | Pro Audio | |||
sub $2000 rackmount mixer for project studio -- mic pre opinions | Pro Audio | |||
Opinions on M&K 5.1 monitors | Pro Audio |