Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Alpha-sphere · 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

Zadian · 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 · 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 · 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 · 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 · 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 · 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 · 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 · May 4, 2004, 12:15 PM

Ain't no thang, bro. We coo'.

mitchell_pgh · May 4, 2004, 12:19 PM

mitchell_pgh · 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 · 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.

Chinasaur · 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

Lateralus · 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*

Millennium · 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.

Chinasaur · 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.

BZ · 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 · 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 · 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 · 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 · 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.