Support NeoGAF

[FortNinety]

Alright, so I want to win back some shelf space and am going to convert all my music CDs to mp3 format (I listen to all my tunes on the computer, plus I'm getting an iPod soon). I have a Mac and will therefore be using iTunes. Now here's the deal...

I know you can convert music into mp3 or AAC. From what I understand, AAC has better sound quality and produces smaller files sizes than mp3s. Is this the truth? And to how much of a degree? Is it all that noticeable? I mean, if going AAC is going to cause a loss in quality, I may as well just go for mp3, right? Or should I just go for better quality, period?

My main concern is what happens if I try to give my AAC tunes to someone who doesn't have iTunes. It's just an Apple thing right? Or is it a format that's going to get wider acceptance?

I guess I shouldn't have to worry about it if I burn the tunes to CD, but again, how much better is AAC than mp3 when making a regular music CD?

Also, what setting should I use? If I were to go with mp3, I guess I'd go with 192 kbps. But I have mp3s from various sources that are sampled at a higher rate. I guess you need some higher end program to do this right?

As for AAC, what is the equivalent to a mp3 at 192 kbps? And if I go with AAC, what bit rate should I go for? Should I max out at 320 (the highest on iTunes)?

Hey, I'm an audio noob, so please excuse the questions that may seem really dumb, but I could really use some advice here. Thanks!

 

[FortNinety]

No responses?

 

[DJ Sl4m]

aac files sound good at 320, but sounds scratchy and terrible at lower bitrates, in fact much worse than other filetypes at the same bitrate.

wma sound better than both IMO, ripped at variable speed at 320 will save you a ton of space and your friends can enjoy em as well, but if you use them more than your friends for iPod and whatnot may as well rip em 320 aac.

You can always rip the same song to different filetypes and different bitrates to compare, but if it were me in your situation my choice would come down to either aac or wma, screw mp3.

 

[xsarien]

No responses?

Go for a high bitrate AAC file. How high depends on how much hard drive space you have, and are willing to give up.

 

[FortNinety]

First off, thanks for the help.

Again, a high priority is compatibility. I'm wary of AAC files since its not as cross platform as mp3's, though I no hear that Real, Winamp, and others do play AACs.

But unfortunately, hard drive space is a concern.

I also hear that a 128 kbps AAC files is as good as a 192 kbps mp3 file, which is encouraging. Though I also hear that AAC is only superior for "vocal heavy tracks and pop music tracks", whatever that means.

I guess I'll go with AAC.... though it drives me nuts that I have both mp3 and AAC tracks. Plus, I guess I better re-rip the CDs I've already done in AAC at 128 at a higher bit rate...

 

[Dilbert]

I know you can convert music into mp3 or AAC. From what I understand, AAC has better sound quality and produces smaller files sizes than mp3s. Is this the truth? And to how much of a degree? Is it all that noticeable?

Better sound quality? That depends on bitrate, the particular encoder being used, the limitations of your playback hardware, and your own individual ears. For every study I've read which said "AAC is superior!" I can find one which says "MP3 sounds exactly the same as AAC!" and even more which say "Ogg Vorbis rules all!"

Given how many factors come into play, why don't you pick five songs that you know very well, rip them at a certain bitrate as AAC and MP3 files as well as AIFF, and conduct your own blind testing? Get someone to play the same song, but not tell you which codec was used...take notes, and figure out which one sounds the best for you. Be sure that you're using the particular headphones/speakers which you plan to use most often with your music, since that can make a huge difference.

Smaller file sizes? Nope. The filesize is primarily dependent on bitrate, not the particular codec.

My main concern is what happens if I try to give my AAC tunes to someone who doesn't have iTunes. It's just an Apple thing right? Or is it a format that's going to get wider acceptance?

First of all, you don't want to give your "AAC tunes" to anyone who doesn't own the CD. I'm sure that's what you meant to say.

AAC is simply the MPEG-4 compression standard in a Quicktime wrapper. Unprotected AAC files (e.g. those you rip yourself from CDs) can be played by other software -- I know Winamp has an AAC plugin, and I'm sure others do as well. Protected AAC files (e.g. those you buy from the iTunes Music Store) require your iTMS registration to work -- those cannot be shared.

As for "wider acceptance," MP3 was first to market and there are a zillion devices which can play MP3 files natively. On the other hand, since iPod is doing so well, AAC is getting more attention. Ogg Vorbis, though a superior format in a couple of ways, is going to have problems since MANY portable devices don't have the horsepower to decode it.

I guess I shouldn't have to worry about it if I burn the tunes to CD, but again, how much better is AAC than mp3 when making a regular music CD?

Also, what setting should I use? If I were to go with mp3, I guess I'd go with 192 kbps. But I have mp3s from various sources that are sampled at a higher rate. I guess you need some higher end program to do this right?

You can select the bitrate within iTunes -- the default is 128 kbps, if memory serves. iTunes and the iPod can both play a variety of possible MP3 and AAC bitrates, so you won't need to "re-rip" your older music, unless space becomes an issue. If you do need to make them smaller, be sure to rip them from the source material -- transcoding MP3->AAC is guaranteed to sound like ass.

As for AAC, what is the equivalent to a mp3 at 192 kbps? And if I go with AAC, what bit rate should I go for? Should I max out at 320 (the highest on iTunes)?

You will have to make a trade between bitrate (higher bitrate = better quality) and filesize (higher bitrate = larger files). On a computer, it's fairly insignificant -- most people have more hard drive space than they know what to do with. On an iPod, space is limited. I have a 20 GB iPod, and even at 128 kbps AAC encoding, not even half of my CD collection will fit on it. You have to assess how much music you want to carry on your iPod at one time, how much you want to deal with manually transferring files to/from the iPod, and how good the sound quality needs to be in order to make the decision. The best possible quality from iTunes would be Apple Lossless Compression, but it only is about a 2x compression ratio. (If the original CD track ripped to AIFF was 50 MB, then the song would be 25 MB with Apple Lossless.)

For what it's worth, I decided to rip everything at the default bitrate (128 kbps AAC) in iTunes. Space on the iPod was a big factor, and sound quality is often overrated because of my listening environment -- quite frankly, audiophile quality is wasted on an airplane or in a gym where there is a lot of ambient noise, and I don't have $300 headphones anyway. If I want to listen to music on my computer, the sound quality is fine. If I want to listen to music on my home theater, I put in the CD -- why have an expensive system being driven by lossy audio when you can play the original instead? Your situation may be different, of course.

Hope some of this helps...

 

[fart]

batch rip them with EAC and lame at alt-preset--insane