Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
are 256k aac audio files lossless ? do they sound better ?
- Thread starter Jungo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I should qualify - is there a substantial increase in dynamic range or frequency response with 256
at 59 my ears have some top end rolled off but i can still notice an increase in soft to loud dynamics -
was just wander in general if folks can hear the diff with 256
as miles01110 said
1) No
2) Depends, it depends on your ears and what you're listening through. IMO I can tell the difference between them even on standard iPod headphones and I wouldn't say I have the best ears in the world but slightly better than average. Best thing to do is rip a couple of track in 256k and compare them with your 128k yourself, blind if possible, there are some ABX audio comparison applications for mac or just get someone else to play each track in a random order and see if you can tell the difference.
1) No
2) Depends, it depends on your ears and what you're listening through. IMO I can tell the difference between them even on standard iPod headphones and I wouldn't say I have the best ears in the world but slightly better than average. Best thing to do is rip a couple of track in 256k and compare them with your 128k yourself, blind if possible, there are some ABX audio comparison applications for mac or just get someone else to play each track in a random order and see if you can tell the difference.
1. No. That is why they are called 256kbps aac files. If they were lossless, they'd be known as lossless aac files.
2. Yes, if you have an ear for sound quality.
Yes, I certainly can hera it. But with more bits you don't get dynamic range and frequency response. Those are specs that are constant over time what you gain is better transients and a lack of compression artifacts.
In other words with 128K MP3 you hear it OK for a few seconds then a drum hit happens that happens to sound like mud. You get a loot fewer artifacts with AAC and even less as the bit rate moves up to 256.
That said lossless is the way to go. It is a bit per bit copy of the CD data. Diska are now so cheap there is not much reason to save space.
The apple lossless is something like 928Kbps - thats a Complete CD rip.
The files are much bigger than a standard mp3 file, sound is noticeable aswel using a good pair of headphones.
The files are much bigger than a standard mp3 file, sound is noticeable aswel using a good pair of headphones.
Lossless CD quality audio is 1411kbps when uncompressed. You can get it a lot lower if you use a lossless codec like Apple Lossless, but it will vary from track to track - there is no set value.
I did some testing myself, with the speakers built into my laptop and the headphones that came with my laptop, 256k will sound almost as good as a CD, 128k is a bit crap, with my AKG studio headphones... I should go buy some more SACD's
but the more important thing to note is that 256k will use twice the space so you may want to check you have room first
but the more important thing to note is that 256k will use twice the space so you may want to check you have room first
It's recording and mastering dependent more than anything else. If the recording was garbage to begin with, then 256 won't make much of a difference.
If your equipment has sufficient enough treble extension, then 256 might give you the impression of higher dynamic range because the treble might extend higher.
Besides that, the most noticeable difference is within the compression artifiacts within treble itself. The artifacts will sound like an underwater effect.
If your equipment has sufficient enough treble extension, then 256 might give you the impression of higher dynamic range because the treble might extend higher.
Besides that, the most noticeable difference is within the compression artifiacts within treble itself. The artifacts will sound like an underwater effect.
Of course it's dependent on recording and mastering but the compression artifacts have everything to do with the quality of the encoder and the bit rate.
The rest of your post is true so maybe I misunderstood you.
What I'm trying to get it as often times a better recording/mastering will sound better at 128kbps than some other song that isn't so well recorded/mastered and is at 256kbps. How complex the song is can also make for large discrepancies between quality difference between those to specific bitrates. Often times a higher bitrate song of a bad recording will expose its flaws even more than a lower bitrate version of it did.
In short, some recordings deserve to be given a high amount of bitrate. Some don't. Kanye West's Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, any song from Oasis sound like garbage no matter how high of a bitrate I rip them at.
In short, some recordings deserve to be given a high amount of bitrate. Some don't. Kanye West's Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, any song from Oasis sound like garbage no matter how high of a bitrate I rip them at.
Last edited: