Mp3 --> Aac ?

[shakespeare]

I heard that there's supposed to be a big reduction in quality if you have iTunes convert your MP3 files to AAC, rather than re-ripping your CD's in the new format. But I've tried it with a few of my files, and I can't hear any difference between the two versions, and the AAC files are several MB's lighter.

Granted, I'm a graphic designer, and my ears are not the best, but still -

Are you guys sure that there's a quality reduction?

[hugemullens]

100% sure. Any time you compress something you lose quality. Your compressing an all ready less than perfect mp3, you will lose something in that transfer.

[shakespeare]

Hm. I believe you, so I'm cursing my ears for not being able to hear the difference. There goes my dream of being an audio engineer ;)

Oh well. Rest assured that I can detect infinitely subtle differences in typefaces and colours!

[SoonToGetAMac]

Originally posted by shakespeare
I heard that there's supposed to be a big reduction in quality if you have iTunes convert your MP3 files to AAC, rather than re-ripping your CD's in the new format. But I've tried it with a few of my files, and I can't hear any difference between the two versions, and the AAC files are several MB's lighter.

Granted, I'm a graphic designer, and my ears are not the best, but still -

Are you guys sure that there's a quality reduction? Yeah. MP3 and AAC are both loosy algorithms. Lose some data with MP3, then you loose more data with AAC when you convert. I don't find the loss to be offensive to my ears, but I am reconverting all of my CDs because I have Bose TriPort headphones:D, and I can sort of tell the difference from 160 MP3 to 128 AAC.

[springscansing]

Originally posted by shakespeare
Hm. I believe you, so I'm cursing my ears for not being able to hear the difference. There goes my dream of being an audio engineer ;)

Oh well. Rest assured that I can detect infinitely subtle differences in typefaces and colours!

It's almost definitely the hardware you are using to listen to the sound with, not your ears.

If you're using computer speakers of a $40 pair of sony headphones, the difference isn't noticable to ANYONE.

[gotohamish]

Originally posted by SoonToGetAMac
Yeah. MP3 and AAC are both loosy algorithms. Lose some data with MP3, then you loose more data with AAC when you convert. I don't find the loss to be offensive to my ears, but I am reconverting all of my CDs because I have Bose TriPort headphones:D, and I can sort of tell the difference from 160 MP3 to 128 AAC.

I had those headphones too, fell apart after a month. Such a shame. Got my money back though.

[King Cobra]

>If you're using computer speakers of a $40 pair of sony headphones, the difference isn't noticable to ANYONE. (springscansing)

If you use certain earplugs, such as the $50 pair I have, it's detectable.

For instance, I used to encode my music into MPEG-2 audio, which slayed many high frequencies. With AAC I can experience much better quality. Even through my earplugs or my 4.1 desktop system the difference is clear. This is with the same bitrate and approx. the same file size for each song.

Of course, each to its own.
I find my old 5GB model iPod plugs and the crap ones from Radioshack more offensive than the music I used to encode to.