Aac?
i tried to search the forum, but it didn't allow me to search words under 4 letters.
thanks.
[372 byte] By [nontoxicglue] at [2007-11-9 14:42:21] 
Hey, i'm new to this itunes hence, new to aac. i was wondering what the difference is (aac vs. mp3). i think i read that itunes store sells aac? but other than that, is there a reason i would rip my cds in aac format/convert my mp3s (is it smaller?).
i tried to search the forum, but it didn't allow me to search words under 4 letters.
thanks.
# 1 Re: Aac?
Do not transcode already compressed music. This will result in loss of quality.For encoding your uncompressed files: Yes, aac like some other newer formats is slightly more file size efficient than mp3. But it's not nearly as widely supported as mp3 and file size is getting less and less of an issue as hdd capacities and bandwith increase. That's why I recommend to stick to mp3 unless you're specifically encoding for playback on a mobile mp3 player with limited capacity.
For example, I have some music files in the ogg vorbis format which is, like aac, slightly more space efficient than mp3, but for playing back those files i'm now locked in to players that support ogg. My previous player worked fine with ogg but iTunes doesn't.
SegaVegas at 2007-11-15 16:47:30 >
# 2 Re: Aac?
The .aac format supposedly is suppose to give a sound comparable to .mp3 encoded at 192kbps with a smaller file size. I ripped one track both at .aac and also mp3 encoded at 192kbps. My results were as follows:-.aac sounded just as good as .mp3 at 192kbps
-.aac file size is roughly 4.5MB
-.mp3 at 192kbps is roughly 6.5MB
so you could assume that .aac gives a better size to sound ratio then .mp3 at 192kbps
hope that helps
Todd
ToddW at 2007-11-15 16:48:31 >
# 3 Re: Aac?
someone once wrote that aac supports 5.1 sound. no idea if this is accurate though. anybody any insights on this?m.r.m. at 2007-11-15 16:49:27 >
# 4 Re: Aac?
thanks for the replies, it helped. i'll stick to .mp3 for now because it would be such a hassle having a mix of mp3 and aac files. yes. i used ogg vorbis on my iriver player until it got smashed.nontoxicglue at 2007-11-15 16:50:32 >
# 5 Re: Aac?
I have all my 400+ CD's ripped in MP3 160 bitrate. From what I understand AAC has higher quality sound at a lower bitrate compared to MP3 files. What is the equivelent bitrate comparison... is for example a 128 AAC file like a 160 MP3, or even 192?Thanks!
saabcaptain at 2007-11-15 16:51:31 >
# 6 Re: Aac?
apparently, 128 AAC is equivalent to 160 MP3 - that's what they say. I have virtually everything on my ipod in 128 AAC, and it sounds fine (to me anyway)djbe at 2007-11-15 16:52:30 >
# 7 Re: Aac?
160 with LAME encoding, or lower quality than that?Septus at 2007-11-15 16:53:35 >
# 8 Re: Aac?
As I understand it, I shouldn't rip my MP3's to AAC because the sound quality will diminish (Something about converting from one compressed format to another). So if I want AAC, should I rip it right from the CD instead?thebrain_16 at 2007-11-15 16:54:38 >
# 9 Re: Aac?
exactly. best results if you re-rip.?i wouldn?t really bother. just rip future tracks to aac (if you want to use aac).m.r.m. at 2007-11-15 16:55:36 >
# 10 Re: Aac?
I have to agree with m.r.mIf you are like many people here you probably have a few hundred CD's which would be quite time consuming to re-encode.
I spent hours encoding using alt preset standard under LAME. Best bet go with AAC starting today and leave your MP3's as is.
SpideyPod at 2007-11-15 16:56:37 >
[an error occurred while processing this directive]