Should I convert all my music to .AAC?

[BurtonCCC]

:confused: So I've got about 6000 songs in iTunes right now... I have this urge to convert all of it to 192kbps .AAC (most of it is around 320kbps .MP3)... should I do it? Or am I going to lose to much quality? Could I just make copies of all of it in .AAC and see if I can hear the difference between the two? Isn't .AAC supposed to be the format of the future?

Note that I've got like 240GB of hard drive space, so disk capacity isn't an issue. Any input on this is welcome.

Daniel

[PlaceofDis]

i would convert some songs (you wont lose the MP3 ones unless you delete them yourself) and see if you can hear a quality degrade at all. obviously it wont sound better, unless you want to re-rip all of your cds/albums

[jcgerm]

:confused: So I've got about 6000 songs in iTunes right now... I have this urge to convert all of it to 192kbps .AAC (most of it is around 320kbps .MP3)... should I do it? Or am I going to lose to much quality? Could I just make copies of all of it in .AAC and see if I can hear the difference between the two? Isn't .AAC supposed to be the format of the future?

Note that I've got like 240GB of hard drive space, so disk capacity isn't an issue. Any input on this is welcome.

Daniel

Personally, I don't see a point to converting them. You're not going to gain anything out of it other than more hard drive space. The quality definitely won't get any better.

[mad jew]

I just finished converting my 9500 library back to 160kbps to free up space on my hard drive and it's not a very enjoyable experience. I wouldn't bother unless you really need the space (like I do, I'm on a laptop).

[SeaFox]

:confused: So I've got about 6000 songs in iTunes right now... I have this urge to convert all of it to 192kbps .AAC (most of it is around 320kbps .MP3)... should I do it? Or am I going to lose to much quality? Could I just make copies of all of it in .AAC and see if I can hear the difference between the two? Isn't .AAC supposed to be the format of the future?


This is so funny. I'm having the same arguement with my girlfriend right now. I have just about finished ripping all my CD's to 192 AAC. I picked it because I'm a big fan of 192 MP3, and well, better sound quality at the same bitrate right?

She is a music major and keeps stuff in 316kbs MP3 (VBR-dual stereo). She says she does not like AAC and thinks it feels "synthetic". What I have noticed lately is that I don't like how AAC handles some bass situations. I have a soundtrack with rolling percussion drums that swell up midway through the track, and -- well I see this in many other types of music,-- they get compressed by AAC.

The drums go lower than a higher bitrate MP3, but they break up and sound distorted. It comes off like a bad bass rolloff if I were recording the music myself. I can't decide with effect I am less offended by: drums that don't go as deep as I feel they should, or drums that sound like crap where I should be feeling their clean power. At this bitrate, lots of te normal compliants about MP3 (like swishing cymbals and low treble) are't really issues.

Part of this arguement we've been having is she feels the sound quality should be foremost (hence the high bitrate she uses). I feel the size should be kept down for portability but still maintain high quality sound (especailly given dismal battery life on most portable players). At this point she said MP3 was also better because no portable players play AAC (my response to this was quite colorful as you can imagine). She backtracked and said she was referring her own MP3 player (which is an OLD, early-adopter type player).

Anyway, I'm thinking of reripping everything now to 192 MP3 (I use a LAME engined encoder).

My recommendation to you is to keep what you have. It will take awhile to rerip all those tracks. My library is significantly smaller (2431 tracks at 85% of all done I estimate). Disk space is not an issue for you and you have something that probably sounds better anyway right now.

Nitpick: AAC's extension is not .AAC, its .M4A

[wrc fan]

I would definately keep it mp3. i ripped a bunch of my stuff to 256 AAC and didn't like it. Now I use Lame with VBR and a minimum bitrate of 192. It's much more pleasing to my ears, though the file size is larger.

[sourcemonkey]

see numerous other threads for more opinions on this. it boils down to personal choice. is HD space an issue? if not definately do not re-encode. you WILL lose quality (whether you can perceive it or not is another matter). if space is an issue then maybe encode at 160/192 ACC- but limit that to lo-fi tracks. maybe back-up your 320mbps files to DVD if you have a burner handy and encode at 160 AAC. you know your own listening habits so encode with this in mind. something related to the placebo effect can take control when considering encoding strategy, your mind can play tricks on you...its all subjective.

[quackattack]

Make sure you realize these is a big loss in quality when you convert from a lossy format to another lossy format.

The 192 AAC files will not sound as good as 192 AAC files ripped from a CD. If you want to do it right you should re-rip your files from your CDs. Otherwise I would keep the originals.

[Lacero]

:confused: So I've got about 6000 songs in iTunes right now... I have this urge to convert all of it to 192kbps .AAC (most of it is around 320kbps .MP3)... should I do it? Or am I going to lose to much quality? Could I just make copies of all of it in .AAC and see if I can hear the difference between the two? Isn't .AAC supposed to be the format of the future?With mp3 at 320Kbps, it's nearly indistinguishable from lossless. It's a high bitrate, so converting it to AAC will have no audible impact on sound quality. You should really do a test on a selection of songs to hear if there's a difference.

I would convert 320kbps MP3 to 128kbps AAC if I were in your shoes. 128kbps AAC is about equivalent to 192kbps MP3. Anything about 128kbps AAC brings about diminishing returns.

[WinterMute]

With mp3 at 320Kbps, it's nearly indistinguishable from lossless. It's a high bitrate, so converting it to AAC will have no audible impact on sound quality. You should really do a test on a selection of songs to hear if there's a difference.


Now that depends on what your listening on and how good your ears are... ;) :D

I've just re-ripped all my CD's to 320Kbps AAC after buying a 60Gb iPod photo (loads of room), but I've used Lossless for a number of very sparse and delicate pieces, which expose any lossy codec.

I have to say, AAC is an acceptable compromise when using earphones, but when running through a decent pair of monitors it sounds positively grainy. Apple Lossless sounds very close to uncompressed PCM (i.e. .aiff or .wav files) and is acceptable as an alternative. However, I can hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit recordings, and now record at 96Khz habitually, so even my CD's sound cloudy and poor now.

What I need is a 2Tb iPod with 24/96 capability and a pair of Stax electostatic headphones... :D