160k MP3 or 128k AAC?

[jason2811]

I'm currently converting my iTunes library to save space. Which format and size would people recommend-- 160k MP3 or 128k AAC? Thanks.

 

[apunkrockmonk]

I'm currently converting my iTunes library to save space. Which format and size would people recommend-- 160k MP3 or 128k AAC? Thanks.

With how cheap and large current day hard drives are this doesn't sound like the best idea.

128kbps AAC will take up less room physically and from what I've read will also sound equivalent to ~192Kbps MP3.

If you are going through with this I'd recommend 160Kbps AAC or better yet 192Kbps AAC at minimum.

Could save you a lot of time re-ripping everything in the future if you determine that you'd like to go back to a higher quality.

Also, if you're not transcoding from a lossless format you may experience additional quality loss going from one loss format to another, ie. 256Kbps MP3 > 160Kbps MP3.

 

[TMRaven]

Eh I'd personally keep the original files. Even though AAC is usually a more efficient codec than mp3, you'll always lose quality no matter what when you transcode items-- think of it like saving a jpeg over and over again.

And besides, you're not losing much space when going from 160 to 128. That's like what, 1mb per song?