aac vs mp3

[mislabeledstar]

does anyone know a good site that explains the differences between these two formats. all i know is aac is a better compression and saves it to a smaller size, but i'd like to understand a lil more and kind of see a comparison. thanks

[King Cobra]

A Spanish read:
http://ice.prohosting.com (http://ice.prohosting.com/clbustos/oggvorbis/comparativa.html)
with

Also:
http://mp3.radified.com/mp3.htm (http://mp3.radified.com/mp3.htm)

[mislabeledstar]

thanks for the info......

another question for anyone who's been encoding in aac....

i've read that 128 is near cd quality, so is there much of a boost in goin up the next level which is 160 or even goin up to 192?

[maradong]

personnaly i can t make a difference anymore between 128 and 160 kbit aac files.
thought perhaps there is a user on the boads who has got a tool to examine the tracks, and show the delta (difference) to see, if there is a big difference or not.

[mislabeledstar]

thanks, thats kinda what i felt after listening to the two

i figured that if 128 is "near cd quality", how much closer could it really get.

[MacAztec]

I use 160 kbit AAC encoding. It sounds a little better (when you listen to it on a quality sytem). Here is how I have it set up...

[evil]

i prefer the 128 bit because of size.
i am in the process of putting a huge collection of cds on my comp, which will then go on my ipod (when i get it). if i were to use 160 i would not have enough space.
i happily find no negative aspects in the quality.

[jelloshotsrule]

i find nothing wrong listening to the 128's on my pod and through my mediocre computer speakers, so that's what i use. i "only" have 5gb on my pod, and can use all the space i can get... if going to 128 aac gets me a gig or so, i'd be thrilled..

[zim]

i went with 160kbs aac because i noticed a slight difference in quality and the file size increase was not that much. i use to strictly use 192kbs mp3. i have cambridge soundworks speakers connected to my imac and i use my ipod through my car speakers and feel that the 160 is a perfect sound quality, 128 is good too and honestly the only time i can tell the difference is when i sit and really think about it. as far as quality, i felt that anything higher then 160 aac would be just using up space on my drive, i would have 100 albums at good quality to excellent rather then 50 at excellent to superb... if i want cd sound then i play my cds on my sound system.

[elusion]

Since I'd previously been importing all my cds as 160kbs mp3s, 128kbs aacs are awesome. My 1440 song, 3.6 day collection of music shrunk more that a gig. I saved an average of 10 megs per cd. More than worth the hassle of reimporting. I haven't detected any loss in quality.

[unfaded]

I can tell the difference between a 128 kbps and 320 kbps AAC file without problem, but I'm a bit obsessive over sound quality. While for most people 128 kbps AAC files will be okay, I would never rip below 320, and will never rip mp3's again.

[Wardofsky]

AAC encoding on 128kps is going to save you a lot of disk space if you have encoded any higher.
AAC 128kps is no smaller than an ordinary MP3 128kps track (if they are the same) it just has a better encoder which can encode lower without comprimising sound quality.