which aac bitrate do you encode in and why?

10gb iPod and I need all the room I can get. I did testing before I started and found the 128's to be plenty acceptable.

192 is the bitrate to have IMO, because its not too big, but is still pretty much indistinguishable from the original.

i'm one of the rare ones it seems...

i used to rip at 320 mp3, and switched to 256 aac the other day as they seem "equivalent" (note that's not equal). they both have their issues but i like aac's sound a bit better. it's also a bit smaller.

size has never been my biggest worry, mainly perceived sound quality.

Can you really tell the difference between 128 and 192 using a good pair of cans like Ety 4Ps?

I don't think this gets said often enough: being able to actually discriminate between two bitrates isn't everything.

There's plenty going on in a typical piece of music which goes unnoticed by the conscious mind, but still has an effect on what you take away from the experience. Bitrate differences might not be detectable during active listening, but that doesn't mean you'll feel the same about a song after listening to X kbps and Y kbps versions.

My point is inherently unscientific. The current trend, on the other hand, is for "rigorous" scientific testing of bitrate vs. bitrate. That's fine, as far as it goes - but it can only deal with the consciously perceived elements of the music. The elements which slip into your brain under the radar are another matter entirely, and no amount of active listening will allow you to legislate for them.

To clarify: if you -can- tell the difference between two bitrates, you should certainly rip in the higher one. But if you -can't-, don't think that you'll have the same listening experience with both.

192, perfect balance of quality and size.

Originally posted by eriklarson
Can you really tell the difference between 128 and 192 using a good pair of cans like Ety 4Ps?

>> I just got my 40G iPod (Windows). Ripped 2 CDs at 128 and noticed that there was a LOT of sound missing. Re-ripped at 192 after reading up on it. So far, the sound quality is very enjoyable.
>> BUT, there is another thread on this forum from Androo(10/22/03) suggesting to rip to FLAC (in permanent storage) and then subsquently batch-ripping to whatever the current best format is OR what the current players will play. Andoo's concerns were very valid and, as soon as I figure out about FLAC, that's exactly what I will do.
>> Is there a "slang" dictionary? What is "cans"? I figure it means external speakers. Care to educate me? Thanks!

I've been ripping everything as 128k AAC, partly because I didn't realize you could set it to a higher quality setting.

But, mainly because my old 20G player was already full, and I previously had my collection ripped as 128k MP3.

So 128k AAC is a step up from what I've been subjecting myself to previously. And, I've already broken the 20G mark and still have 100's of CDs to go...(I have a 40G iPod).

The Dreamer

I've ripped a few at the default 'high quality' setting which I believe is only 128. Haven't been impressed. Compared to 192 mp3s that have been through mp3gain these aacs are too loud and the bass hates the EQ settings even more than the mp3s.
So much for 128 AAC = 192 MP3

256

ive been a portable cd player listener for about 6-7 years now, and i dont particulary want to miss out on any level of quality..i'd get so angry if a song i'd been listening to for years sounded strange. i'd pick up on it straight away.

through the headphones i have i cant hear a difference between 256 and 320, but i can hear a difference between 256 and anything lower. im lucky that i have a 40, as im not worried that by 200 albums aren't gonna fit. most of my mp3s are 192, which is good as well.

i was gonna rip at 214 originally but i heard a bit of a funny edge to one of the songs, so i thought i'd go nuts.

personal prefference really. i think something below 160 is a shame.