PDA

View Full Version : 320 vs 160




macosupafly
Dec 27, 2006, 04:14 PM
I have my entire library encoded at 320kbps AAC, I've got 2000 songs, and my library is around 15gb.

I just got an 8gb nano, and I wanted to keep all my files with me.

Is it better to re-rip all my cd's at 160, or will there be no different if I just reconvert the files I already have to 160.



killmoms
Dec 27, 2006, 04:18 PM
It is better to re-rip the original CD. Even 320kbit AAC is lossy—it throws out some information to get that low. Transcoding from an already lossy file to another lossy file always creates more loss than re-encoding from the original source.

nitynate
Dec 27, 2006, 04:18 PM
I have my entire library encoded at 320kbps AAC, I've got 2000 songs, and my library is around 15gb.

I just got an 8gb nano, and I wanted to keep all my files with me.

Is it better to re-rip all my cd's at 160, or will there be no different if I just reconvert the files I already have to 160.
EDIT: Whoops. The guy above me already said it. :)

macosupafly
Dec 27, 2006, 04:22 PM
thanks