Wanting an ipod

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by jtsimler3, Aug 15, 2004.

  1. jtsimler3 macrumors member

    jtsimler3

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #1
    I've been wanting an iPod for some time now, but need some answers before I invest.

    I'm debating between the 20 or 40 GB. Do iPods hold both AAC and MP3 formats? If so, this is my question...

    If I burn the same cd onto my iPod (ex. 13 tracks), which format will use more space? The website leads me to believe a 20GB will hold 5,000 songs. Is that in MP3 or AAC format?

    I just wanna make sure I get a big enough one. I listen to a lot of songs in the 10 min range, which would change that 5000 song estimate quite a bit. I wanna get the best deal for my money.

    Thanks!
     
  2. Chaszmyr macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #2
    They both hold AAC and MP3. What takes more space depends on what bitrate you encode into. AAC is supposedly equal quality at lower bitrate, but personally I like to use 160kbps MP3.

    How discriminating are you about sound quality? 128kbps AAC might be the best choice for you


    The "5000 songs in your pocket" estimate is based on 128kbps AAC, but 128kbps AAC and 128kbps MP3 are equal file size, just not necessarily equal quality
     
  3. jimsowden macrumors 68000

    jimsowden

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2003
    Location:
    NY
    #3
    Apple gets the 5,000 song figure by calculating 5,000 128kbps AAC 4minute songs. AAC, at the same bitrate as MP3, is going to be smaller. Some say it is lossy, I can't tell.
     
  4. quackattack macrumors 6502a

    quackattack

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Location:
    Boise, ID
    #4
    I've heard that 128kbps AAC has the same compression as 192kbps MP3. So they are going to sound the same. Therefore as long as you aren't using other programs beside iTunes and the iPod you should go with AAC to get more songs in the same HD space.
     
  5. Chaszmyr macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #5
    Eh it's a matter of opinion. A lot of people think 192kbps MP3 will sound a whole lot better than 128kbps AAC
     
  6. Finiksa macrumors 6502a

    Finiksa

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2003
    Location:
    Australia
    #6
    No it isn't, try using your brain.

    Think about it, at the same "kilobits per second" they're storing exactly the same amount of data per second so are exactly the same size.
     
  7. dermeister macrumors 6502

    dermeister

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    #7
    Exactly. I can't believe some people still get this wrong after the huge ACC versus MP3 debates not too long ago.

    A 128 bit MP3 takes the same room as a 128 bit ACC, because they're BOTH 128 BITS PER SECOND which is 16 KB/sec of streaming bandwidth.

    However, a 128 bit ACC is flouted as being as nice as a 192 bit MP3, so by storing your music as 128 bit ACC INSTEAD of 192 mp3, you would save space.

    Personally I rip at 192 ACC to be safe (I'm assuming it comes close to sounding like a 256 MP3, which is what I used to rip at).
     
  8. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #8
    Actually, people HERE claim that 128 kbps encoded AAC files sound better than 192 kbps Mp3s. Officially, the claim is that when both encoded at 128 kbps (ie: at the same bit rate), AAC sounds better than Mp3.

    Since Apple is the biggest supporter of AAC, you're bound to get people at MR making claims that a 128 kbps AAC is going to sound better than a 192 kbps mp3. Personally, I don't think its true, but hey, thats my opinion. To me, 128 kbps AACs sound better than 128 kbps Mp3s, and 192 kbps AACs sound better than 192 kbps Mp3's, but not THAT much better. I rip my mp3s as 192 kbps AAC files, and used to rip them as 192 kbps mp3s. They'll take up the same amount of space, but I figure I'm now getting slightly better sound out of it. Try not to buy some of the "claims" around here. ;)
     

Share This Page