AAC vs. Lossless

sc_curtis · Post by **sc_curtis** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:24 pm

For those of you who have made the leap into portable music devices (iPod and etc...), which method do you prefer for ripping your CDs?

I can't imagine it making a huge difference on some of the pop music out today, but for those of us with a set of critical ears, and the fact that we listen to music of a more sensitive nature, is there a huge difference in quality between the 2?

I don't have an iPod yet, but I have started to rip all of my CDs into iTunes. Due to the storage requirements I would prefer to use AAC if there isn't a discernable difference, but its worth the sacrifice of extra space if I can't tolerate AAC.

Thanks,
Steve

tubafatness · Post by **tubafatness** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:05 pm

Usualy, when you rip a CD with iTunes, it records the files as MPEG-4 AAC. You can change that in the Preferences; just go to the Advanced settings, and Import. Then select what importer you want to use. I never use the mp3 or mp4 importing mode, I usually use the WAV encoder or Apple Lossless. Apple Lossless more often than not sounds better for classical, but it's all a matter of taste. You may get bigger files, but they'll just sound better. Plus, the AAC Importer tends to make song files quieter, which can be annoying.

brattom · Post by **brattom** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:15 pm

There are two factors that effect how close to true "CD Quality" sound you can get - encoding and bit rate. AAC is a superior encoder to mp3 at the same bit rate. That means a 128k AAC file sounds better that 128k mp3. However that is not necessarily the case with say 160k mp3 vs 128k AAC.

Bit rate refers to the amount of space an audio file takes per second of sound, so 128k AAC takes the same amount of space as 128k mp3.

Any encoding called "lossless" is considered to not lose any sound quality in the encoding, as opposed to "lossy", so from the perspective of sound quality, all lossless's should be the same. Apple Lossless is the only lossless that plays on an ipod. From what I understand it was developed by Apple because it is not as processor intensive in playback as other lossless encoders so it works well on the ipod.

That said, if you have the storage space, encode lossless. You can always re-encode downward, but not upward. Then you will never have to rip your cd's again. This is especially true if you consider yourself an "audiophile".

Most of my CD's are encoded at 160k or 128k AAC, but I listen to my ipod mostly in my car - maybe the only upside of DC traffic. It would have been nice if I had encoded everything lossless, but disc space used to be expensive! One of these days I will have to re-encode them to lossless. However, all that stuff bought on the iTunes store will never sound better - until Apple ups the bit rate (please).

Here is a interesting article I read a few days ago on just this topic.

http://playlistmag.com/weblogs/ipodblog ... lsrc=mwrss

Good luck,
Tom

SplatterTone · Post by **SplatterTone** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:40 am

Variable bit rate mp3 or wmv works for me. I can't hear any appreciable difference using 192 versus 320 Kbit. But then, the main reason for the portable device is not so I can take it plug it into the big HiFi system, but so I can plug it into the car system which, although rather good, is not a home HiFi.

I also listen with a middle of the road Sennheiser headphone (not top of the line). And I still don't hear any significant difference there either.

I have an Archos Gmini XS200. Uses a FAT32 file system. No special drivers required. Just drag and drop files to it. You can use it to store non-music data if you want.

sc_curtis · Post by **sc_curtis** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:52 am

Hmm, ok...

So if I change the setting to 192 kbps, and enable the Variable Bit Rate Encoding option, then this will give me pretty good quality, right?

How will the file size for this compare to the size if I just used the Apple Lossless Encoder?

I guess I'm really trying to ask if the difference in quality is enough to justify the different storage requirements, even though the answer will most definitely differ between people. Just wanted to know what people who have already gone through this think (yes, I know, opinions!!!).

Thanks for the info so far, just trying to get a handle on it!

ThomasDodd · Post by **ThomasDodd** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:20 am

I can't tell you much about the Apple codecs, but I use Ogg-Vorbis for most encoding. I've tried FLAC a few times, but I couldn't tell enough difference to make it worth the storage requirements.

WoodSheddin · Post by **WoodSheddin** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:52 pm

I did all my stuff I think 192k or omesuch AAC and wish I had done mp3 for the simple ability to play in more players than just an ipod.

35+ gigs later and hours and HOURS of ripping and directory tweaking and I am not switching now. Too late for me.

sc_curtis · Post by **sc_curtis** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:02 am

Thats something I didn't even think about: the versatility of MP3 to play in other media devices...

I guess the best thing for me to do is to just rip a few tracks using multiple methods, and choose the lowest quality one I can tolerate.

I just don't want to "fool" myself into thinking I can hear a difference when maybe I can't. I think I'll enlist the help of my friends and do a blind testing.

Thanks for all the input so far, it has given me the right kinds of things to think about!

SplatterTone · Post by **SplatterTone** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:29 am

Really. You would need a very good system and very good ears to hear the difference between 192 Kb variable bit rate and uncompressed original. Anything more than that and you are using up a lot of space for some very diminishing returns.

That bit rate is what these fine Russian folks (who are pissing off some of the music bigwigs) use.
http://www.allofmp3.com/

(And, in case anyone is interested, I buy all my stuff. The whole CD. If somebody can't put out a whole CD worth buying, then I ain't listening to their junk.)

finnbogi · Post by **finnbogi** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:40 am

WoodSheddin wrote:I did all my stuff I think 192k or omesuch AAC and wish I had done mp3 for the simple ability to play in more players than just an ipod.

35+ gigs later and hours and HOURS of ripping and directory tweaking and I am not switching now. Too late for me.

If you use iTunes, you can convert the lot to mp3 with one command.
If you don't use iTunes, you can do the same with a slightly less simple shell script, using an encoder such as lame.

The conversion does take time, but at least you don't have to watch it.

WoodSheddin · Post by **WoodSheddin** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:59 am

finnbogi wrote:
WoodSheddin wrote:I did all my stuff I think 192k or omesuch AAC and wish I had done mp3 for the simple ability to play in more players than just an ipod.

35+ gigs later and hours and HOURS of ripping and directory tweaking and I am not switching now. Too late for me.
If you use iTunes, you can convert the lot to mp3 with one command.
If you don't use iTunes, you can do the same with a slightly less simple shell script, using an encoder such as lame.

The conversion does take time, but at least you don't have to watch it.

I tried that in the past and the quality took a nosedive. Perhaps the convertors are better now?

ThomasDodd · Post by **ThomasDodd** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:31 pm

WoodSheddin wrote:
finnbogi wrote:
WoodSheddin wrote:I did all my stuff I think 192k or omesuch AAC and wish I had done mp3 for the simple ability to play in more players than just an ipod.
If you use iTunes, you can convert the lot to mp3 with one command.
I tried that in the past and the quality took a nosedive. Perhaps the convertors are better now?

Converting from a lossless format to any other format should have no effect on quality. That's to point of lossless compression, when uncompressed it is identical to the original, uncompressed WAV file.

Converting from one lossy format to any other, is and will always be a problem (OGG-vorbis had a page about the reasons). The information lost in the first encoding is missing and needed for proper encoding. Even reducing the bitrate within the same format (say 192k MP3 to 128k MP3) will usually not be as good as making the lower rate encoding from the original source.

ThomasDodd · Post by **ThomasDodd** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:08 pm

the elephant wrote:
ThomasDodd wrote:Even reducint teh bitrate ofwitghin the sma format . . .
It looks like you should have sent this post in via a lossless TubeNet codec, Thomas!

Brucom · Post by **Brucom** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:57 pm

AAC vs. Lossless

AAC vs. Lossless

bump