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.
CD ripping: What compression do you use?
- Thread starter dogbone
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
AAC 160 VBR is what I usually use, though I've heard LAME sounds the best and as it's mp3 is most compatible.
Eraserhead said:
Honestly, I think that's just the FLAC / Ogg / LAME (open souce / free codec) pwnz j00 crowd. AAC is a superior codec which offers decent performance at all bitrates in comparison to other codecs.
sunfast said:
It's perhaps not surprising how many people, especially the 'anything but iPod' crowd equate at least one of the A's in AAC to Apple and view it as an Apple lock-in codec even now when other vendors are introducing native AAC support. AAC is about as proprietary as MP3. MP3 is simply a wider supported codec.
I use 192 AAC. Sounds pretty good to my ear and the size is decent. Now that HD space is less of a problem, why wouldn't you spring for a higher quality?
Sesshi said:
Is this actually true? I have heard that low bitrate AAC nails MP3, but does it hold true at 256-320?
I'm going to import one of my Jarre CD's that was mastered at some incredible rate into both AAC and MP3 and have a listen. The only problem is that I dont think I have any equiptment thats capable of reproducing it good enough for a proper test
I use LAME ~320 VBR. I found this sounds best for me. I keep all the cds I purchase so, I already have the originals of everything. I have considered making a copy of my library and converting it to 128 aac for my ipod mini as the only time i use my ipod is in the car and apple ear buds. But....I just haven't brought myself to do that just yet.
"In an ideal world", I'd have a mean mother of a RAID equipped, 3GHz Mac Pro, with all my music digitised in lossless format. Then when transferring to the media player of choice, iTunes would encode (or should that be transcode in this case?) to the chosen format in the fly, then transfer it.
jréh said:
Better quality.
I'm limited on space, and generally don't care how the music sounds as long as it's listenable, so I use 128kbps MP3.
whooleytoo said:
Still too slow for me. I've done some projections and I'd need 2 x 4-core (and not the proposed low-end ones) before it comes usable. Transcoding is one of the things that really benefits from multithreaded usage as each instance can crunch on one track (although iTunes doesn't seem to take advantage of multiple cores - but a fairly well-known Windows app which I use does).
Coda said:Is this actually true? I have heard that low bitrate AAC nails MP3, but does it hold true at 256-320?
I'm going to import one of my Jarre CD's that was mastered at some incredible rate into both AAC and MP3 and have a listen. The only problem is that I dont think I have any equiptment thats capable of reproducing it good enough for a proper test
The differences become pretty much indistinguishable at 320, but to all intents and purposes AAC is a better codec than MP3. It's also better than WMA as implemented by online shops.
although i do appreciate a higher bitrate, i don't have the money for good earphones. that's why I only use 128 kbps AAC. i find 192 kbps Mp3 to be the best, not too big (filesize), not too ugly (sound).
my familly thinks it's spoiled to spend $50 or more on earphones, so i'm not going to be able to afford shure earphones. BTW, how good or V-moda remix Earphones? they are right at the right price i would pay for earphones.
my familly thinks it's spoiled to spend $50 or more on earphones, so i'm not going to be able to afford shure earphones. BTW, how good or V-moda remix Earphones? they are right at the right price i would pay for earphones.