Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Applications > Aac Vs Mp3

Aac Vs Mp3
Thread Tools
Alpha-sphere
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Netherlands (The Hague)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 04:54 AM
 
I'm thinking of turning my MP3 collection into AAC but how is the quality compared to MP3 192kbps. I did rip an album in both MP3 192 and AAC 128 but i myself can't hear the difference. Every little bit of saved space is a given for me. To much crap on my computer
Powered by a 15" alu powerbook superdrive
     
Zadian
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 05:16 AM
 
Originally posted by Alpha-sphere:
I did rip an album in both MP3 192 and AAC 128 but i myself can't hear the difference. Every little bit of saved space is a given for me. To much crap on my computer
If you don't hear a difference, then go ahead an re-rip your CDs to AAC 128. You are the one to listen to the encoded songs, so it's you who decides what suits your needs best.


You can always re-rip your CDs with different settings.

(I either hear a difference between aac 128 and mp3 160 or 192 - at least not on the devices i use for playback).
     
thePurpleGiant
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 05:22 AM
 
I considered doing this, but then realised that I cannot use AAC files on any other portable music player other than an iPod. Just something to take into consideration.
     
shortcipher
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 09:19 AM
 
Originally posted by Alpha-sphere:
I'm thinking of turning my MP3 collection into AAC but how is the quality compared to MP3 192kbps. I did rip an album in both MP3 192 and AAC 128 but i myself can't hear the difference. Every little bit of saved space is a given for me. To much crap on my computer
well, if you cant tell the difference I would suggest that you should probably switch, as long as it sounds OK to you, it doesnt really matter whether there are any actual differences does it?
     
dreilly1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 10:23 AM
 
Originally posted by thePurpleGiant:
I considered doing this, but then realised that I cannot use AAC files on any other portable music player other than an iPod. Just something to take into consideration.
That may very well change in the future. AAC files are MP4 audio files, and are now supported by many PC-based MP3 players, like winamp. It's only a matter of time before MP4 gets more widespread acceptance on portable players.

You will probably not be able to play iTunes-store-bought protected AAC files on any player other than the iPod for the forseeable future. At least, that's what Apple thinks...
     
Turias
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 10:26 AM
 
Originally posted by Alpha-sphere:
I'm thinking of turning my MP3 collection into AAC but how is the quality compared to MP3 192kbps. I did rip an album in both MP3 192 and AAC 128 but i myself can't hear the difference. Every little bit of saved space is a given for me. To much crap on my computer
Sounds good to me. Just remember, rerip from CD only. Don't rip your MP3s to AAC.
     
wataru
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 11:27 AM
 
Originally posted by Turias:
Don't rip your MP3s to AAC.
Don't transcode them from MP3 to AAC. Just a pinch more detail on this: Both are lossy formats, meaning they throw away sound data. If you transcode you lose data twice.
     
Turias
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 11:31 AM
 
Originally posted by wataru:
Don't transcode them from MP3 to AAC. Just a pinch more detail on this: Both are lossy formats, meaning they throw away sound data. If you transcode you lose data twice.
Damn, why you gotta disrepect me like that? I was just trying to keep the vocab on the DL for the AAC deficient among us.
     
wataru
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:15 PM
 
Ain't no thang, bro. We coo'.
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:19 PM
 


<resisting incredible urge to be a sig nazi... >
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:23 PM
 
"Never convert a MP3 to an AAC" should be a golden rule.

Also, if you ever plan on making an MP3 CD, keep everything MP3.

I've found out the hard way that it's a pain to make MP3 CDs for my car and DVD player.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:46 PM
 
Re-rip; don't convert. This is true when dealing with any lossy format, because there is no way to get the data back that was lost during the original rip.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Chinasaur
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Out West Somewhere....
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:56 PM
 
AlphaSphere,

I had my mp3's at 192K mp3, but realized I was missing a lot of clarity. I just re-ripped to 224K AAC and the difference is very noticeable to me. Knowing I was not hearing all the song began to bug me.

If you are going to incur the overhead of increased file size at 192K mp3, you might consider going a bit higher and encoding at 224K AAC. Depends on your needs for portable players, whether you can hear the difference and if you have enough HD space.

Good reference link - http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~m....ervations.html
iMac - Late 2015 iMac, 32GB RAM
MacBook - 2010 MacBook, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM
     
Lateralus
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 01:15 PM
 
Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:


<resisting incredible urge to be a sig nazi... >
It may be twice as long, but it's only half as thick... *Snicker*
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 02:22 PM
 
Originally posted by Chinasaur:
If you are going to incur the overhead of increased file size at 192K mp3, you might consider going a bit higher and encoding at 224K AAC. Depends on your needs for portable players, whether you can hear the difference and if you have enough HD space.

Good reference link - http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~m....ervations.html
It looks as though AlphaSphere wants to save space, so I don't think the increased overhead of the 224K file is going to be worth it. He wants to go to AAC, it looks like, specifically so that he can encode at 128K without losing quality.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Chinasaur
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Out West Somewhere....
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 05:15 PM
 
Looking @ 192Kmp3 vs 224K AAC, the avg increase is 1MB. That's not a lot for better quality sound. 'Course that's in the ear of the listener...

YMMV.
iMac - Late 2015 iMac, 32GB RAM
MacBook - 2010 MacBook, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM
     
BZ
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 05:30 PM
 
I don't have the "ears" so when I a re-ripped my collection (I stopped ripping mp3s when I heard AAC was coming out) from 160 MP3 to 128 AAC, I have never heard a difference.

Of cource, now that I have 5,000 songs ripped with at least another 5,000 to go... I better not hear anything.

For me, since I just bring my iPod to work, in the car and hook it up to my stereo once in awhile, 128 AAC is fine.

BZ
     
OwlBoy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2004, 09:59 AM
 
Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
It may be twice as long, but it's only half as thick... *Snicker*


-Owl
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2004, 12:04 PM
 
Originally posted by BZ:
I don't have the "ears" so when I a re-ripped my collection (I stopped ripping mp3s when I heard AAC was coming out) from 160 MP3 to 128 AAC, I have never heard a difference.

Of cource, now that I have 5,000 songs ripped with at least another 5,000 to go... I better not hear anything.

For me, since I just bring my iPod to work, in the car and hook it up to my stereo once in awhile, 128 AAC is fine.

BZ
I'm just waiting for Apple to pull a iTunes 5 update where it tags all of your AAC files and protects them. Feature number 128!!!

But seriously, AAC is great minus the MP3 CD issue I have. I just wish it had an auto convert to MP3 for the burning of CDs and then automatically trash the MP3.
     
thePurpleGiant
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2004, 07:53 PM
 
Originally posted by dreilly1:
That may very well change in the future. AAC files are MP4 audio files, and are now supported by many PC-based MP3 players, like winamp. It's only a matter of time before MP4 gets more widespread acceptance on portable players.
Well, I used to think that when Apple first announces AAC. But two years later, I go into a store and they still haven't even heard of AAC, let alone offer any players that support it.
     
typoon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Tollbooth Capital of the US
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2004, 11:12 AM
 
If the songs are in MP3 format I would re-rip them as AAC. The quality is MUCH better. Also 224K is a bit overkill. For most 128K-192K ripped in AAC will be more than fine.
"Evil is Powerless If the Good are Unafraid." -Ronald Reagan

Apple and Intel, the dawning of a NEW era.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:18 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,