AAC v. MP3

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by Foxer, Jun 2, 2003.

  1. Foxer macrumors 65816

    Foxer

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #1
    Without getting too technical, what are our impressions of the new format. As soon as the iTunes was put, I re-ripped some of my favorite CD's for 192 MP3 to 102 AAC. To be honest, I'm not sure of the difference. I've read some posts on other threads that were openly critical of AAC. If it were that much better, I'd happily re-rip everything into AAC (at the same bit-rate) for increased fideltiy, but I'm not sure its there.
     
  2. thekaiser macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2002
    Location:
    Huntington Beach, CA
    #2
    I can only tell a subtle difference on my Apple Pro Speakers w/iSub. However, when I hook my iPod directly to my stereo, of much higher quality, the difference is more significant. At equal bitrates, I would choose the AAC format. You will have to make the final decision for yourself based on what you think sounds best for you. I like the AAC, and I plan to continue using it.
     
  3. WinterMute Moderator emeritus

    WinterMute

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    London, England
    #3
    I ran my AlBook through a pair of Dynaudio M1 pro monitors in one of the main studios at the Uni, I then re-ripped a number of tracks @ 320kbps MP3 and then ripped the same tracks at varying bitrates in AAC, the bottom line was that at 160kbps AAC sounds better (more musical was how I defined it) than the 320kbps MP3, half the data rate=half the disc space.

    AAC is a much better codec for music through small speakers or earphones, but no codec fares well through pro monitors (CD's sound rough to me...) IMO:D
     
  4. alset macrumors 65816

    alset

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2002
    Location:
    East Bay, CA
    #4
    I agree with WinterMute's characterization of AAC as "more musical." I can tell the difference on my studio monitors and my headphones. The sound is brighter and more open. Bass translates better, as well.

    Why didn't Apple choose Ogg Vorbis? It seems to get much better reviews. I haven't really had a chance for comparisons, but Ogg scores really high on spectral analyzers for preserving sound.

    Dan
     
  5. WinterMute Moderator emeritus

    WinterMute

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    London, England
    #5
    Ogg Vorbis is a very good sounding codec, but seems to need a higher bit-rate to really score big, I can't speak with any great authority, but we tested Ogg against MP3 and AC3 a while back with uncompressed 16-bit and 24-bit PCM as a control. Ogg came out on top with similar bit-rates, but nothing sounded as good as the 24 bit PCM (big surprise).

    Inevitably it's a trade-off between file-size and quality, moderated by the monitoring system.
     
  6. tazo macrumors 68040

    tazo

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, Seattle, WA actually
    #6
    i was wondering something, is there a limit to how high a bitrate you can rip a file to? like could you go a meg per second? :p
     
  7. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #7
    >a meg per second

    I would recommend that if you have hearing that can detect the difference between 1411Kbps audio (CD) and 755.5Kbps compressed AIFF audio. Try that for a week.

    It comes down to your speaker. The difference between AAC and mp3 is nothing but the compression quality. Some speakers will pick it up, and you'll hear quality music. Other speakers, such as springscansing's self-molefested earphones, will not like it, and neither will what comes out and hits your ears.
     

Share This Page