MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
Hate to pass up a better format, BUT...
Now that iTunes and AAC-ripping for Windows have finally come out, it's time to make a final decision about how to rip all my CDs. I have a fairly large collection (~1200 CDs), so frankly my #1 priority is to make sure I only ever have to do this once; I guess I've been postponing the whole project until AAC came out, just to see what it was like. I'm willing to go to a little extra effort up front to ensure that I should never again have to sit and tediously feed over a thousand discs into my computer, one at a time.
I've almost decided to toss out filesize consideration as being too important a factor. I've got way more music than will fit on my 30 GB iPod right now anyway, and given how cheaply and rapidly hard drive capacities are expanding it seems silly to base something that's supposed to be a long-term solution on the hardware I've got right now. While it would be nice to fit more songs on my iPod now, that's not the most important factor here.
SO...I think my current plan is to rip everything to VBR MP3, probably using EAC/LAME with the -alt-preset-standard settings. My ears are bad enough after years of too much loud rock and roll that, to me at least, most MP3s encoded at that rate sound very close to the original CD. I think I've decided on MP3 over AAC, because I really do want a fairly long-term solution, and I worry that I might be just a little too married to Apple and the success of the iPod market if I end up with my entire collection ripped to AAC. For example, what happens several years from now if Apple unexpectedly bows out of the market and the new players (or whatever; cell phones will probably also be 300 GB audio players by then) don't support AAC? However, one could reasonably expect that whatever will be out there will be backwards-compatible enough to support MP3.
Still...somehow it just feels basically WRONG to pass up what is obviously a technically superior format in favor of an older one, just because of some paranoia about future compatibility. Anyone have any thoughts on the semi-long-term future of these formats? Obviously there's no way to predict the future; I just REALLY don't want to have to go through ripping 1200 CDs more than once...
(Hey, at least WMA is right out, though!)
Thanks,
Andrew
[2438 byte] By [
androo] at [2007-11-9 15:01:28]
# 1 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
Well, the ultimate method is to rip everything to FLAC (which is lossless) and archive those, preferable on an external hard drive. Next, have your software rip from FLAC to whatever you currently think is the best lossy codec for your current setup, and let it run all weekend. Next time a better codec comes along, it takes hardly any work on your part (but a lot of computer time) to bring you up to speed.
# 2 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
I've actually considered exactly what you suggest -- ripping to FLAC, and then subsequently batch-ripping. I suppose DBPowerAMP would work for that sort of batch-ripping, but in my limited tests with it I haven't had much luck with it preserving tags seamlessly. And I don't want to have to go back and re-tag much more than I want to manually feed CDs into the computer. Do you happen to know if there's a better way to batch-rip from FLAC into a lossy codec? Unfortunately, the demise of Hydrogenaudio has taken away a pretty great resource for looking this sort of thing up...
androo at 2007-11-15 17:41:39 >
# 3 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
I have also considered that same approach. I have been debating the method for ripping CD's for awhile and thought I had settled on mp3 using EAC/LAME at alt-preset standard. However, I have been doing some research on AAC. I have found nothing definitive (other than compare myself), but mostly I've realized that new formats will appear faster than I can rip.
I think ripping to a lossless format would give me the most flexibility as my Tivo (which I use to play music on my stereo) can only play mp3's and I would save space on my ipod with AAC. Probably will need a bigger hard drive though.
Do you have any recommendations for software to use to rip to FLAC? Are there any competing lossless formats? One more question, where's the best source to read about FLAC and get questions answered?
Thanks
# 4 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
Another lossless format is Monkey's Audio. Very fast and good compression, but it's only on Windows. Either FLAC or MA will be a good choice for your archival format. You can use Foobar 2K (http://www.foobar2000.org) and its diskwriter component to convert to a good number of different formats. Incidentally, Foobar 2K supports writing to mp3, aac/mp4 and mpc (not that mpc matters for the iPod). The best thing is, it copies tags on conversion. Rip and tag all of your lossless files then convert with Foobar and tags will be intact!
clintb at 2007-11-15 17:43:40 >
# 5 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
I personally have made the "Switch" at least as far as music formats are concerned. No, I'll never own a Mac but the iPod *IS* the preeminent and most widely supported/seen MP3 portable on the market.
As for whether or not it's enough to use AAC for the iTunes downloadable songs to make AAC a widely accepted format remains to be seen. But as for me I'm ripping all new material I acquire at AAC 224Kbps.
While not an absolute scientific method, this person at:
Mark's iPod page and information/tests about iPod sound quality (http://members.brabant.chello.nl/%7em.heijligers/ipod/)
and especially his subpage at:
AAC vs MP3 - Encoding Observations (http://members.brabant.chello.nl/%7em.heijligers/ipod/encodingobservations.html)
has gained a reputation as a good source of information about AAC vs MP3 quality.
Give it the once over, maybe you'll change your mind (if you'd made a decision, that is). I would submit that AAC at 224Kbps or higher will be around for the forseeable future. Having said this I also agree with the other postings here so far in this thread about lossless compression like FLAC or Monkey's Audio for long term archival purposes (with the intent of keeping something around for re-encoding to new compression formats as they come out without the need to do the re-ripping again). That sort of thing just isn't for me, however. To each his own.
br0adband
# 6 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
Unfortunately, the demise of Hydrogenaudio has taken away a pretty great resource for looking this sort of thing up...What happened to Hydrogenaudio? I'm browsing their forums right now!
# 7 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
Originally posted by Samwise
What happened to Hydrogenaudio? I'm browsing their forum right now! It was taken down for about 1-2 weeks. Something to do with the admins re-evaluating their focus or there abouts.
clintb at 2007-11-15 17:46:43 >
# 8 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
Ah... Fair play. Thanks for the info :)
# 9 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
I think I've decided on MP3 over AAC, because I really do want a fairly long-term solution, and I worry that I might be just a little too married to Apple and the success of the iPod market if I end up with my entire collection ripped to AAC.
Why fear AAC? It is not specific to Apple. It is a result of the continuation of the standards process that brought us MP3. I think AAC will gradually (or maybe not so gradually) replace MP3.
See Audio & Multimedia MPEG-2 AAC (http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/amm/techinf/aac/index.html) at Fraunhofer.de
# 10 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
Originally posted by redandgray
Why fear AAC? It is not specific to Apple. It is a result of the continuation of the standards process that brought us MP3. I think AAC will gradually (or maybe not so gradually) replace MP3.
See Audio & Multimedia MPEG-2 AAC (http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/amm/techinf/aac/index.html) at Fraunhofer.de
AAC is not going to replace MP3. It may supliment it, but frankly licenseing is a problem and will likely stay a problem for a long time to come. I would strongly recommend lossless if you have the space.
I suppose DBPowerAMP would work for that sort of batch-ripping, but in my limited tests with it I haven't had much luck with it preserving tags seamlessly.
I haven't used dbpoweramp becuase I use foobar2000 as my audio player. It will transcode APE, FLAC or SHN lossless into MPC, AAC, Ogg or LAME and I've never had any trouble with tags. I'm sure theres other software as well that can do this. Theres no reason not to use lossless if you have the space.
# 11 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
AAC to replace MP3?
BAH!!
if any format will, it'll be OGG VORBIS. Its open source, so you dont have to pay royalties, and the quality is superior to AAC for the bitrate and file size.
# 12 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
Well, the ultimate method is to rip everything to FLAC (which is lossless) and archive those
What are FLAC files and how big is a FLAC file if you rip a song of 3 minutes.
What about the OGG format. Is this even better than AAC. Better quality for the same size as AAC.
# 13 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
What are FLAC files and how big is a FLAC file if you rip a song of 3 minutes.
FLAC is a lossless compression format. All the lossless formats I'm familiar with get about 2:1 compression from a WAV file, resulting in roughly 5 MB per minute of CD quality audio. See FLAC on Sourceforge (http://flac.sourceforge.net/) for details.
FWIW, I prefer Monkey's Audio for lossless compression because it compresses better (~ 2% more) than FLAC without adding much to the compression computation time.
I don't share stasyna's opinion about OGG VORBIS vs. AAC when comparing quality vs. file size. I would say there is no clear winner in that battle, yet, but I would certainly be happy to see an open source format win out eventually. I still think that MP3 will be replaced by something, and AAC has as good a chance as OGG VORBIS, maybe better, and not necessarily based on pure technical merit.
# 14 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
I can't see OGG getting very far. It won't displace MP3, which is gradually becoming a legacy format, and AAC and WMA are carving up the market for the foreseeable future (barring Sony choosing to adopt a third format). Without at least one big player backing it, OGG's history.
# 15 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
How can you make those .ape or .flac files playabel. I've found some on the internet (I didn't feel like rip myself) cause I want to test the sound of the files.
# 16 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
Originally posted by Sir Fresh
How can you make those .ape....files playabel.
Simple:
1) Install Winamp (http://classic.winamp.com/)
2) Install Monkey's Audio (http://www.monkeysaudio.com/)
3) During the install of Monkey's it'll ask you if you want to install the Winamp plugin - say yes (if it doesn't, open Monkey's and select Options>General>Install Winamp Plugin)
4) Play your .apes :)
I don't use FLAC so someone else will give you info for that hopefully.
jMc777 at 2007-11-15 17:55:56 >
# 17 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
Why bother with compression? Some here said earlier that storage is getting cheap and I would agree. A terabyte of storage is now about 1000.00 USD or 1$ for 1 GB. In terms of CDs archiving each CD will cost you about 60 to 70 cents for each CD. My point is that lossless compression is great but since my Jukebox of choice (iTunes) won't play any of the current lossless compression formats, my choice is .aiff
# 18 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
Originally posted by randydecker
Why bother with compression? Some here said earlier that storage is getting cheap and I would agree. A terabyte of storage is now about 1000.00 USD or 1$ for 1 GB. ...since my Jukebox of choice (iTunes) won't play any of the current lossless compression formats, my choice is .aiff
Hmmm, this sounds like somebody who has yet to fill up their hard disk(s) with uncompressed audio files. I've already filled up a few 180 GB drives with APE and FLAC files myself, so the thought of not using compression sounds ludicrous to me. Lossless compression lets me store over twice as much music for the same money, and we're talking about hundreds, if not thousands of dollars here.
IMHO, forgoing lossless compression is an expensive tradeoff to make based on the inadequacies of your chosen jukebox software (iTunes). The better music applications out there can handle every lossless format with ease. If Apple released a plug-in SDK for iTunes this would be quickly remedied (fat chance!).
I archive my music using lossless compression (FLAC, APE), and I can easily listen to those files with WinAMP or foobar2000. I load my iPod with high quality MP3 and AAC files because I don't want to waste 4/5 of my iPod's storage when I can't hear the difference in the environments where I use my iPod.
BTW, I question the offhand figure of $1000 for a TB of storage. Personally, I doubt you could manage 1 TB in a robust system for less than $3000 total cost (and that estimate does not include your time to build and maintain it). But this particular discussion probably belongs elsewhere.
# 19 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
I see that you're quick to dismiss my choice of player but for me iTunes is the best solution. Not that other players don't have features that I like but iTunes is scriptable which means it has an infinite number of features which are being added to all the time. See here Doug Adams iTunes scripts (http://www.malcolmadams.com/itunes/). I would welcome lossless compression for iTunes and I would use it. It's a non-issue for me right now as you say. I have 410 GB of space and when that gets close to full I'd have to make a decision. By that time an external 500 GB FW 800 drive might be in the 500 dollar mark. Right now I think they're around 649.00 which makes a TB 1300.00 LaCie (http://www.lacie.com)
# 20 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
Originally posted by randydecker
Why bother with compression? Some here said earlier that storage is getting cheap and I would agree. A terabyte of storage is now about 1000.00 USD or 1$ for 1 GB. In terms of CDs archiving each CD will cost you about 60 to 70 cents for each CD. My point is that lossless compression is great but since my Jukebox of choice (iTunes) won't play any of the current lossless compression formats, my choice is .aiff
Can't tag AIFFs AFAIK. Also huge files are annoying to manage, gain, tag and generally work with. Fortunately there are plently of players that support lossless so its a viable option.
# 21 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
Originally posted by randydecker
I see that you're quick to dismiss my choice of player but for me iTunes is the best solution. Not that other players don't have features that I like but iTunes is scriptable which means it has an infinite number of features which are being added to all the time. See here Doug Adams iTunes scripts (http://www.malcolmadams.com/itunes/). I would welcome lossless compression for iTunes and I would use it. It's a non-issue for me right now as you say. I have 410 GB of space and when that gets close to full I'd have to make a decision. By that time an external 500 GB FW 800 drive might be in the 500 dollar mark. Right now I think they're around 649.00 which makes a TB 1300.00 LaCie (http://www.lacie.com)
Most common players are far more upgradeable then iTunes. Extensibility for most parts of the player is effectly zero. You cannot upgrade the UI, have limited ability to upgrade decoding/encoding engine, no command line decoder/decoder, and a feature poor engine (no support for gapless, etc).
I also don't think you can extend the tagging support either.
Nothing wrong with likeing iTunes, however I'm pointing out your reasons for using it make no sense. You should have just said "I like iTunes" :)
# 22 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
I said that I liked being able to run scripts in iTunes. How does that not make sense? Since all my tunes are tagged (both the mp4 and the .aiff) I'm not sure I get the point. Please explain.
# 23 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
An "infinite number of features" <cough!> would, by induction, imply that it could already support lossless compression. :D
In reality, the AppleScript stuff only gives you control over features that are already part of the GUI. You can automate diddling with playlists and tags and artwork, but you can't add new features, and it only works on the Mac. It's cute and fun, but very limited, IMHO.
For an example of true extensability, take a look at foobar2000 (http://www.foobar2000.org) sometime. It's Windows only, but the same things could be done on a Mac.
Whatever will you do when your hard disk crashes and you lose your entire online music collection?
# 24 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
My hard drive is my jukebox. All the music is a copy of CDs I own. They are the back up.
# 25 Re: MP3 over AAC as a long-term solution?
Originally posted by randydecker
My hard drive is my jukebox. All the music is a copy of CDs I own. They are the back up. In other words, when your hard drive crashes, you will be forced to re-rip and re-tag every CD you own. I don't know about you, but to me losing a TB of well-structured data is a serious pain, no matter if I have all the original source data.
In a nutshell, a single large hard disk with no backup plan or RAID-based redundancy is a fragile solution. Hard drives fail, usually without warning or recourse, and I have seen it happen many times.
Furthermore, a storage plan that starts with a single disk and then replaces that disk with another single larger disk once a year does not scale up to a TB and beyond. The risk of failure remains constant, but the cost of failure continues to increase. The average seek time decreases on larger disks, too, so they get slower and slower.
If you consider your storage solution to be cheap, and if you value your music collection and your time, you might consider doubling your storage so you can perform disk-to-disk backups.
Sorry if that spoils your $$/GB ratio. ;)
