 |
 |
iTunes Encoding : ACC vs. MP3
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yesterday I encoded my first few tracks from some CD's I have as 160 Kbs ACCs .. I made a mixed CD with some 128 Kbs MP3s and the new 160 Kbs ACCs.
The ACCs were easily identifiable when I listened to the CD on my home stereo system. They sounded Dull and Flat to my untrained ear. Even my girlfriend who is about as technically savy as my grandmother said, what's wrong with this song while one of the ACCs was playing.
Has anyone else had this experience?
I thought that Bit for bit Acc was supposed to sound better then MP3. So, given I encoded at a HIGHER bit rate I shouldn't have heard what I precieved to be lower quality from the ACC.
I've never purchased off of ITMS but knowing the songs are 128 kbs ACC it makes me wonder if I should ever bother.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Upstate NY (cow country)
Status:
Offline
|
|
Since your ear is "untrained", maybe it is that you think the AAC sounds flat, but it is still a better reproduction of the original?
I have a 1000+CD library and have ripped many to my HD. MP3 has been a disappointment to me, even at 192kbps. I am pleased with AAC at 160. It sounds much better. consistently. I don't want to get into an audiophile level discussion here though. I don't know what to say about your observation.
I guess an important question is: Did you compare it to the original CD to see which format gives the best reproduction?
|
|
"Destroy your ego. Trust your brain. Destroy your beliefs. Trust your divinity." -Danny Carey
MacPro Quad 2.66, G4 MDD dual 867, 23" Cinema Display and 17" LCD, G4 Quicksilver dual 800, 12" Powerbook 867, iMac 300 Grape, B&W G3/300 with G4/450 running yellowdog, iPod 5GB, iPod mini, PowerCenter 150, Powercenter 132 tower, Performa 6116, Quadra 700, MacSE, LC II, eMate 300
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by alexforsythe24:
Yesterday I encoded my first few tracks from some CD's I have as 160 Kbs ACCs .. I made a mixed CD with some 128 Kbs MP3s and the new 160 Kbs ACCs.
The ACCs were easily identifiable when I listened to the CD on my home stereo system. They sounded Dull and Flat to my untrained ear. Even my girlfriend who is about as technically savy as my grandmother said, what's wrong with this song while one of the ACCs was playing.
Has anyone else had this experience?
I thought that Bit for bit Acc was supposed to sound better then MP3. So, given I encoded at a HIGHER bit rate I shouldn't have heard what I precieved to be lower quality from the ACC.
I've never purchased off of ITMS but knowing the songs are 128 kbs ACC it makes me wonder if I should ever bother.
Maybe your MP3s are distorting the originals in a more pleasing way to your ears? 160kbps AAC should be closer to the original no matter what.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
You might also want to try a higher quality encoder than the one that iTunes uses before you completely rule out AAC. Ovolab's AACHoo or Quicktime Pro will produce higher quality AAC files (at the cost of taking longer to encode).
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Seattle, WA, King
Status:
Offline
|
|
iTunes uses Quicktime for the encoding. It is one of the best AAC encoders available. The "Best" setting in Quicktime has no effect of 16-bit audio. IOW, the "better" and "best" settings produce identical output for CD Audio.
The other posters are correct. The AAC will sound far closer to the original recording than the MP3 with far fewer artifacts.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
