iPod converting to AAC Q's

[fadetoblack86]

how should i convert my mp3s/cds? 320kbps? or 128kbps? is there any good medium kbps that don't take up as much room... and is there that big of a difference between 128 and 160? is 320 worth the quality and space it takes up? does the ipod playback only a certain kbps?
EDIT: i'm pretty much getting ready for an ipod.

thanks, fadetoblack86

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Welcome to the forums. If you search/browse a bit you'll find lots of threads on different views on bitrates.

Now, if space is an issue, like it is for me, then stick to aac@128. The quality is more than good enough for most purposes. I play my music over AirTunes to my ONKYO amplifier at home and use a nice pair of KOSS sportapro with my iPod mini, and the quality is more than good enough.

I've also converted a lot of old mp3s I had on different bitrates, from 160-320 to aac@96vbr, to save space on my iBook, and I really cannot hear any difference on the mp3@320 and aac@96vbr, but that's just me...

Of course some people might tell you that anything below apple lossless, aac@320, aac@192, etc is useless, but I just think that if aac@128 is good enough for iTMS, then it's good enough for me...

 

[fadetoblack86]

cool cool thanks!!!

 

[NicP]

how should i convert my mp3s/cds? 320kbps? or 128kbps? is there any good medium kbps that don't take up as much room... and is there that big of a difference between 128 and 160? is 320 worth the quality and space it takes up? does the ipod playback only a certain kbps?
EDIT: i'm pretty much getting ready for an ipod.

thanks, fadetoblack86

dont convert your mp3s, leave them as they are

 

[DeSnousa]

dont convert your mp3s, leave them as they are

Really? I converted some 192kbps mp3 into 128kbps acc and did not notice a difference in quality. It just depends on what your listening is like, I guess.

 

[KKKL]

192kbps mp3

 

[NicP]

Really? I converted some 192kbps mp3 into 128kbps acc and did not notice a difference in quality. It just depends on what your listening is like, I guess.

AAC and MP3 compress music by discarding different bits of data. So converting to mp3 then to aac is going to reduce the quality more than converting directly to aac. Running something through several lossy encoders is never a good idea!

Have you ever tried comparing the original to your encoded file side by side? on a decent stereo i'm betting youd tell the differance!

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Have you ever tried comparing the original to your encoded file side by side? on a decent stereo i'm betting youd tell the differance!

I have a decent stereo, and the difference is negligible... ie. I don't hear any noticeable difference from the original mp3@320 or mp3@160 and the re-encoded aac@96vbr.

You might, but most people wont...

 

[mopppish]

I would without a doubt recommend 192 AAC for all future ripping. It's enough of a jump above 128 to improve the quality in a noticable way (maybe you don't notice now, but you will someday... ) but still very conservative for the hard drive. On a decent stereo or even decent headphones, I can definitely tell the difference between 128 and 192, but not really between 192 and 320 (which I encoded at). I wish I would have just done 192 to begin with.
Keep in mind that you may have this collection for a while, so any future upgrades in listening equipment or maturing ears may reveal artifacts that you don't hear now. The difference between 128 and 192 space-wise is negligible, but take it from someone that uses their ears professionally- the difference in sound IS there.
Also, AAC is more efficient than mp3, so you get better sound for less space.

 

[betbest1]

I would without a doubt recommend 192 AAC for all future ripping. It's enough of a jump above 128 to improve the quality in a noticable way (maybe you don't notice now, but you will someday... ) but still very conservative for the hard drive. On a decent stereo or even decent headphones, I can definitely tell the difference between 128 and 192, but not really between 192 and 320 (which I encoded at). I wish I would have just done 192 to begin with.
Keep in mind that you may have this collection for a while, so any future upgrades in listening equipment or maturing ears may reveal artifacts that you don't hear now. The difference between 128 and 192 space-wise is negligible, but take it from someone that uses their ears professionally- the difference in sound IS there.
Also, AAC is more efficient than mp3, so you get better sound for less space.

I assume you mean 192 VBR?

 

[NicP]

I assume you mean 192 VBR?

isnt all AAC VBR?

 

[betbest1]

isnt all AAC VBR?

Apparently not, since there is an option in Preferences > Advanced > Importing, if you select AAC and choose Custom, to enable/disable VBR.

 

[CubaTBird]

Apparently not, since there is an option in Preferences > Advanced > Importing, if you select AAC and choose Custom, to enable/disable VBR.

what about mp3 vbr set at 160 kbps? i remember vbr being a format that allows itself to either increase or decrease quality based on the sounds in the song.. thats what patrick norton said from tss way back when iirc.