Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPhone

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 18, 2013, 08:48 AM   #1
kuykee
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2010
How much audio quality is lost converting 320kbps MP3 to 128kbps AAC?

How much audio quality is lost converting 320kbps MP3 to 128kbps AAC?

I'd like to know so that I can store more files on my iPhone and iPod classic (also to make the iPod classic hard drive spin less). Also to save space on my Macbook hard disk
kuykee is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 08:50 AM   #2
basesloaded190
macrumors 68030
 
basesloaded190's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Send a message via AIM to basesloaded190
My guess would be that it depends on what kind of headphones you are using. If you are using something along the lines of Apple's earphones, my guess would be not that much. But if you have a $200+ set you might notice the decrease in quality.
__________________
2011 MacBook Pro 15 HR Anti-Glare, Etymotic ER-4p, iPhone 4 32GB
Twitter
basesloaded190 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 08:51 AM   #3
jamesjingyi
macrumors 6502a
 
jamesjingyi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Send a message via Skype™ to jamesjingyi
Why not test it out yourself

Oh and why not try iTunes Match... Then nothing is on your MB at all and your Classic is fine!
__________________
11" MacBook Air 2012, iPhone 5S 32GB Space Grey, iPad Mini 32GB,
20GB free storage here
My blog which is updated... Sometimes... Twitter: @jamesjingyi Tumblr
jamesjingyi is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 09:16 AM   #4
sectime
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesjingyi View Post
Why not test it out yourself

Oh and why not try iTunes Match... Then nothing is on your MB at all and your Classic is fine!
I use 192kpps compression when syncing my IPhone with ITunes. Best trade off in quality vs size for me. Your listening environment is more important than compression for sound quality.
sectime is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 02:08 PM   #5
scaredpoet
macrumors 603
 
scaredpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
there is an option to down convert to 128kbps when syncing to iPods and iOS devices, so you might want to try that. If you don't like it, you can just uncheck the box and resync.
__________________
If you're not a clairvoyant, then you shouldn't be speaking for a dead guy.
I'm here to talk about Apple stuff, and related tech stuff. Your political beliefs? I really couldn't care less about.
scaredpoet is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 02:25 PM   #6
Interstella5555
macrumors 603
 
Interstella5555's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
192kbps?
Interstella5555 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 07:45 PM   #7
alphaod
macrumors Core
 
alphaod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: 上海 (Shanghai)
Why would you buy a classic to save space?


The loss in quality cannot be quantified. You need to physically listen to each song, and it's possible if you have poor headphones, or even a bad hearing, you can't tell the difference.
__________________
Mac Pro | iMac | Mac mini | MacBook Pro | MacBook Air | iPad | iPhone | iPod
alphaod is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 08:40 PM   #8
xraydoc
macrumors Demi-God
 
xraydoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Top left corner
On good equipment you will almost certainly hear a difference. How much it bothers you is what matters most.
__________________
3.5GHz i7 27" iMac • Surface Pro 3 i5 • 2.5GHz i5 Mac mini + 27" Thunderbolt display • Nexus 5
xraydoc is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 08:50 PM   #9
jon3543
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by kuykee View Post
How much audio quality is lost converting 320kbps MP3 to 128kbps AAC?

I'd like to know so that I can store more files on my iPhone and iPod classic (also to make the iPod classic hard drive spin less). Also to save space on my Macbook hard disk
It won't be nearly as bad as converting MP3 to MP3 using LAME, which can produce obvious artifacts after just one generation of transcoding. In fact, high bitrate MP3 to AAC will probably be pretty good. Let your ears be the judge, but please perform valid comparisons using foobar2000's ABX comparator or similar. There are apps that will let you do the comparison right on the Touch.
jon3543 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 08:51 PM   #10
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by kuykee View Post
How much audio quality is lost converting 320kbps MP3 to 128kbps AAC?

I'd like to know so that I can store more files on my iPhone and iPod classic (also to make the iPod classic hard drive spin less). Also to save space on my Macbook hard disk
Plug in your iPod. In iTunes, click on the iPod. Click on "Summary", and "Convert higher bitrate to 128KBit". That option is non-destructive. Nothing on your hard drive is changed, so you don't have to worry about any loss. iTunes converts the music while it gets downloaded to the iPod. If you don't like it, you just change the option. I cannot distinguish AAC 192KBit from originals. 128KBit loses something. It's not the same.
gnasher729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 12:22 PM   #11
kuykee
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2010
foobar2000 comparator looked interesting, but it's still only listening by ear according to this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt7GyFW4hOI

Is there something else that can give you a graph or more statistical view of what is being lost from or changed in the file or in which parts there have been changes?
kuykee is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 02:03 PM   #12
lazard
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
depends on what earbuds/headphones you're using and how good your hearing is. Personally, I would never rip in 128 because it sounds so awful.
lazard is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 03:35 PM   #13
JAT
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Mpls, MN
Quote:
Originally Posted by kuykee View Post
foobar2000 comparator looked interesting, but it's still only listening by ear according to this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt7GyFW4hOI

Is there something else that can give you a graph or more statistical view of what is being lost from or changed in the file or in which parts there have been changes?
This question and discussion has been ongoing since the 70s. (only the formats have changed) Good luck on receiving an answer.
JAT is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 04:01 PM   #14
jon3543
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by kuykee View Post
foobar2000 comparator looked interesting, but it's still only listening by ear according to this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt7GyFW4hOI

Is there something else that can give you a graph or more statistical view of what is being lost from or changed in the file or in which parts there have been changes?
Viewing things like waveform difference files is not particularly relevant. The only thing that matters is your own subjective perception and performing a valid blind test. Besides using foobar ABX or equivalent, the two files to be compared must be derived from the same mastering, and preferably the exact same source (one from the other obviously counts); otherwise, you may be testing for differences in mastering, not encoding, and differences in mastering can be genuinely profound and trivial for anyone to ABX.

There is an infinite amount of nonsense in discussions about these things. Here is a fairly detailed slideshow of a scholarly presentation that used high-end equipment under ideal conditions:

http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~hockman/...tation2009.pdf

Its conclusion were:
  • Trained listeners can hear differences between CD quality and mp3 compression (96-192 kb/s) and prefer CD quality.
  • Trained listeners can not discriminate between CD quality and mp3 compression (256-320 kb/s) while expert listeners could.
  • Ability to discriminate depends on listeners’ expertise and musical genre.
  • Artifacts can be verbalized and do not depend on musical genre.

I think AAC is a lot better than MP3 at low bitrates, judging by my threshold for hearing artifacts in various "killer samples", which disappear for me at AAC 128 Kbps but persist in LAME 3.98 MP3 up to 192 Kbps and a little beyond. I've also found transcoding high bitrate MP3s to AAC to be much more transparent than going MP3->MP3, which introduces obvious artifacts after one generation. If you want to read a lot of subjective crazy talk including things like cable directionality, try the stevehoffman.tv forums. For people who value blind listening tests, try hydrogenaudio.org.
jon3543 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 05:53 PM   #15
kevink2
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
For me, where I listen to my iPhone, I don't see that it matters. In my truck, there is enough wind noise that I don't notice.
kevink2 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 08:52 PM   #16
dellAbait
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
8.4% i spent 4 months studying this
dellAbait is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPhone

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AAC to MP3. SinkOrSwim Mac Applications and Mac App Store 10 Aug 3, 2013 11:53 PM
AAC to MP3 quality. SinkOrSwim Digital Audio 5 Aug 2, 2013 05:03 AM
Will MP3 and AAC become obsolete? marty1990 Mac Applications and Mac App Store 3 Jul 25, 2012 02:32 PM
128kbps: AAC or MP3 Totty1987 iPod 26 Jun 30, 2012 12:50 AM
FLAC to MP3 320KBPS AppleDApp Digital Audio 11 Jun 24, 2012 09:26 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:05 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC