Well Alot of Freaking Good That Did...

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by neoelectronaut, Nov 4, 2004.

  1. neoelectronaut macrumors 68020

    neoelectronaut

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Location:
    Southeastern Louisiana
    #1
    A few months back I wiped out my entire MP3 collection and re-ripped to a more HD-friendly (or so I thought) AAC format.

    Well I just checked now, and my library is something like this:

    AAC Files: 2186 Songs, 8.13GB
    MP3 Files: 2256 Songs, 8.92 GB

    So that, to me, more or less says that I'm not saving a whole lot of space between the previous 192kbs MP3 and the 128kbs AAC now...

    And since my library is a hair over 18GB as it is, that gets rid of my plan of converting to AAC so I could somehow be able to cram it into a 20GB iPod in the future. That's a moot point I suppose, and it seems now that it's gonna be a 40GB or bust, so I may as well go back to the probably better-sounding MP3.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #2
    id say that 192 MP3 is the same as 128 AAC if you ask me

    and yeah between the two bit rates there isnt that much of a difference, but i still prefer the AAC files, to me they sound better, and at least for me take up less room, im at 3467, mostly 128 AAC and its 13.2 gigs for me
     
  3. Mechcozmo macrumors 603

    Mechcozmo

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    #3
    I use AAC all the time... if you just told iTunes to convert to AAC and did not insert the original CD then you will degrade the quality because you are re-encoding it.

    I like AAC better, for the size and quality. :)
     
  4. reh macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    Arkansas
    #4
    A 128Kbps MP3 is the same file size as a 128Kbps AAC. Kilo-bits-per-second. Doesn't leave much to the imagination (until you start talking VBR). Now, the sound quality with vary a little to a lot depending on who's ears you're using.
     
  5. cluthz macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #5
    I have 95% my music (8960 songs, 51.3GB) compressed as 192k MP3.
    I usually thinks that i have a fine tuned ear.
    MP3@128k isn't good enuff, you have joint stereo and higher freqs doesn't sound that well (listen to the cymbals). I usually find 192k to be the best compression vs quality.
    I took a blind test on myself, i took a few of my favourite songs and compressed them as 128k, 160, 192, 224k. I could easily tell the difference between 128->192k, but had difficulties to seperate the 224k and 192k tracks from each other.
    AAC is probably as good as MP3, but i have always used mp3s...
    (hard to get rid of habbits..) :D


    If you're doing this test, also try with high-quality headphones..
     
  6. combatcolin macrumors 68020

    combatcolin

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Location:
    Northants, UK
    #6
    I use 96Kps.

    And if AAC+ emerges i might go down to 64Kps if the quality is good.
     
  7. paxtonandrew macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    I Come From A Land Down Under
    #7
    I have all my songs in 128 AAC, and i prefer that to Mp3, for the simple thing of principle. My iPod is made to play AAC, and it is very easy to convert my current songs to AAC, so why not use that function built in to the iPod and Mac OsX. I have 932 songs at 3.31 gigs. I have calculated i can fit 5000 songs on my iPod, and still have room over on my 3rd Gen, 20Gb.
     
  8. Mitthrawnuruodo Moderator emeritus

    Mitthrawnuruodo

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    #8
    My 2582 aac's (almost all at 128) take 8,40 GB, while my 4488 mpeg's (roughly 10% at 320, 30% at 192, 30% at 160 and the remaining 30% at 128) take 19,92 GB.

    The aac@128's sounds a lot better than all the mpeg, but that's my own, highly subjective, opinion... ;)
     
  9. cluthz macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #9
    If you think that aac@128k sounds better than mp3@320k, does the aac sound better than the cd also? (beiing a bit childish here.. :D)

    I know thats a subjective opinion, but try to listen (blindfolded) to a track thats convert both as mp3@320k and aac@128k, if you thinks that the aac sounds better, there is probably some problems with your encoding..
    The mp3@320 should be better, but if you don't have a highquality stereo or a pair of decent headphones you'll maybe don't hear the difference.
     
  10. Makosuke macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Location:
    The Cool Part of CA, USA
    #10
    Ok, I must be missing something here. Like "reh" said, a 192kbps MP3 is exactly that--192kbps, or 24K per second of music, regardless of the song. Same goes for 128kbps AAC--it should sound pretty close to 192kbps MP3 (actually more like 160) because of the better compression algorithm, but the file size will be exactly 128kbps, or 16K per second of music, one third smaller.

    So if those are the figures you're getting, either all those MP3s aren't compressed at 192kbps, or the songs you've got in AAC format are, for whatever reason, longer on average than the ones you've got in MP3.

    Assuming the above songs are indeed all compressed at 128 and 192 respectively, then your AAC songs would take up 12.2GB as 192kbps MP3s, and your MP3s would take up 5.95GB if you recompressed them as 128kbps AAC. Try ripping a single song (or album) both ways and see for yourself--bitrate is bitrate.

    VBR MP3, by the way, will produce better quality than fixed bitrate, but the files produced aren't consistent in size--you set the minimum, but the average total bitrate will be higher, and different depending on the particular piece of music.
     
  11. neoelectronaut thread starter macrumors 68020

    neoelectronaut

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Location:
    Southeastern Louisiana
    #11
    I dunno, I may go back and re-rip to MP3...but man that takes forever. It took forever going to MP3 the first time, and forever going to AAC after that....yeesh.
     
  12. Makosuke macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Location:
    The Cool Part of CA, USA
    #12
    Indeed, so it's a matter of whether its worth it to save a couple gigabytes--my point is only that you can tell exactly how much space you'll be saving before you go to the trouble.

    Incidentally, here are a couple of things that might help, depending on what hardware you've got. One, if you're not already doing this, setting iTunes to "rip and eject" on CD insert lets you sort of just ignore it and switch discs periodically while you're doing something else on the computer.

    Second, if you have a DVD burner, some people have ripped their entire collection to Apple lossless and then archived that to DVD. Then, when you want to re-rip your "online" library in a different format, there's a lot less disc switching to deal with--just re-import each DVD into whatever format you're currently using. Your 2000 MP3s above would probably fill 6-7 DVDs, which isn't too bad. This also gives you a full-quality backup of all your music.

    Just some thoughts that might be helpful.
     
  13. rueyeet macrumors 65816

    rueyeet

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Location:
    MD
    #13
    I rip in 192k MP3 as a matter of portability, and being able to let my roommate and neighbor use my songs for mix CDs. 192 is where I stopped noticing quality issues with my collection of Nine Inch Nails songs--which are so hyper-engineered and (to me at least) ultra-familiar that they make a good personal benchmark. If anybody's anal about sound down to the last infinitesimal vibration, it's Trent Reznor. :D

    128k AAC does seem to be just as good, based on my iTMS purchases, but AAC doesn't work with everything that I need it to (or more properly, that my friends need it to). :)
     
  14. Mitthrawnuruodo Moderator emeritus

    Mitthrawnuruodo

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    #14
    Well, I said it was subjective... :)

    But I stand by my opinion, have not had many mp3@320, but of the few hundred I had I've re-ripped some in aac@128 and I think the sound quality actually improved on some of them (like Michael Andrew's 'Mad World' from the Donnie Darko OST). Most of them probably didn't improve or even got a bit worse than the original 320's, but as I'm more than satisfied with the quality, and the files take less than 1/3 of what they used to, I still think they're better. And when I think they are better, they actually sound better... I don't think I'll take the Pepsi challenge on them, but I'm happy... ;)

    But I don't have too many 320s (or 256s). Most of my CDs I've ripped as mp3s @192 or @160 (I needed mp3s for my old flash based player), and all of these are clearly better when re-ripped as aac@128... All, both old and new, are ripped in Apple's own iTunes...

    I got all my music on my iBook and syncs some playlists to my mini. I have a couple of KOSS sportapro (first hit when I googled them) that I use with my mini or when playing music from my iBook when I'm not at home. There I usually use my Airport Express to my more than acceptable home stereo with an old, but decent pair of Pioneer speakers...

    I almost forgot: the aac@128s makes wonders for battery life on the mini, compared to mp3@320... I actually get longer playback now (with about half the songs I actually play as aac@128) then when the player was new back in February (when all my music was mp3s, most - as I said - @160 or @192).

    Edit: I'm almost daily on my office on the 4th floor of Høyteknologisenteret if you want to argue more. Just look for the corner where all the mac users are... ;)
     

Share This Page