Mp3 > AAC + More space?
[231 byte] By [psy111] at [2007-11-9 19:19:03] 
I have all my songs into Mp3 192 quality and Now that I have an ipod I can use the AAC format. If I put all my MP3 192 quality songs into a AAC 128 quality format, how much space would I save from 2300 songs or 12 GIG worth of MP3?
# 1 Re: Mp3 > AAC + More space?
192-128/192 = 33%12 GB of MP3s = 8 GB of AACs
However if you do this rerip from your CDs. Converting between formats typically adds objectionable noise.
Kirk at 2007-11-15 17:40:14 >
# 2 Re: Mp3 > AAC + More space?
I've done this a few times and primarily only notice degrade in quality when ripping anythign below 256 bit rate (which I think is obscenely high)Most of the time I do 128 AAC on import but if you're 192 MP3 rips then don't convert. Re-rip or you'll notice.
GraceMolloy at 2007-11-15 17:41:12 >
# 3 Re: Mp3 > AAC + More space?
What Happens is that the file will obviously get bigger if you rip it from mp3 to AAC but what you have to do is rip it straight from a cd to AAC. Then you'll see the differenceoriginalcrush at 2007-11-15 17:42:10 >
# 4 Re: Mp3 > AAC + More space?
Converting from one "Lossy" codec (or transcoding as it's known) is not recommended, even from a higher bitrate file to a lower, ie 192 MP3 to 128 AAC.Because the 192 MP3 file has already been compressed from the original CD (bits thrown out to lower the file size) if you then encode the 192 MP3 to 128 AAC you will be in effect re-compressing an already de-graded file, so the 128 AAC file will be of lower quality than the original MP3.
Also different encoders discard different bits, so things just snowball downhill really. By all means re-encode to AAC 128 to save space, just do it from the original CD (if you can) anything else is false economy.
Transcoding is fine if done from a "Lossless" codec like FLAC or WMA Lossless. :)
divad6719 at 2007-11-15 17:43:16 >
[an error occurred while processing this directive]