AAC for ipods ? anyone ?
in [UK Mac]
|
From: James Jolley on 10 Jan 2010 19:27 On 2010-01-11 00:23:14 +0000, Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> said: > In article <1jc4obk.4kw80fowvd8gN%Howard.not(a)home.com>, Howard > <Howard.not(a)home.com> wrote: > >> Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Howard <Howard.not(a)home.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I have been looking at a change to AAC for quality purposes... >>>> >>>> Anyone already moved over to AAC for use on their iPod or in the home or >>>> car ? What do you think ? >>> >>> Most of my audio is AAC as I always used iTunes for it (even before the >>> iPod). I have no problem with it. >> >> Tks. I wonder if others have made the change and how they feel about >> it.. > I have flannel ears. When I'm listening intently, it is usually > classical music. I can't hear the difference between 160 kbit/sec AAC > and mp3 at any bit rate above 192 kbits/sec. Below that and mp3 is > worse. About the only time I can hear the difference between 160 > kbit/sec AAC and CD or lossless is a bit of warble on whitish noise, > such as ambient crowd noise on live performances. Mp3 makes a much > worse mess of that in my view. > Even AAC is unpleasant below 160 kbit/sec. > > So I discard all mp3 less than 192 and recode everything else to 160 > AAC. If my ears were younger, I might have chosen 192 or even 256 AAC, > discarding mp3 less than 320. I haven't changed to AAC myself, just because I use iPods and devices designed for the Visually Impaired. These devices accept Mp3 as a standard. Most of my things are speech, radio dramas etc and I tend to encode the sterio ones at 192 and the mono at 128.
From: Andy Hewitt on 10 Jan 2010 19:33 Howard <Howard.not(a)home.com> wrote: > I have been looking at a change to AAC for quality purposes... > > Anyone already moved over to AAC for use on their iPod or in the home or > car ? What do you think ? Just to chime in my bit. I almost exclusively buy music from iTMS now, and have converted all my files to 256bps AAC (well, imported as AAC from non-compressed formats). I have a reasonable system here, with a Yamaha amp, with Castle speakers, which are pretty good at revealing poor sources. On that I am happy enough listening to AACs through Airport, which sound rather good to me. If I want to be fussy, I go with vinyl, but generally, I can't usually tell AACs apart from commercial CDs (which I find can be very variable in quality anyway - some can be really heavily compressed (audio, not file)). -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: Howard on 10 Jan 2010 19:48 Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> wrote: > In article <1jc4obk.4kw80fowvd8gN%Howard.not(a)home.com>, Howard > <Howard.not(a)home.com> wrote: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Howard <Howard.not(a)home.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I have been looking at a change to AAC for quality purposes... > > > > > > > > Anyone already moved over to AAC for use on their iPod or in the home or > > > > car ? What do you think ? > > > > > > Most of my audio is AAC as I always used iTunes for it (even before the > > > iPod). I have no problem with it. > > > > Tks. I wonder if others have made the change and how they feel about > > it.. > I have flannel ears. When I'm listening intently, it is usually > classical music. I can't hear the difference between 160 kbit/sec AAC > and mp3 at any bit rate above 192 kbits/sec. Below that and mp3 is > worse. About the only time I can hear the difference between 160 > kbit/sec AAC and CD or lossless is a bit of warble on whitish noise, > such as ambient crowd noise on live performances. Mp3 makes a much > worse mess of that in my view. > Even AAC is unpleasant below 160 kbit/sec. > > So I discard all mp3 less than 192 and recode everything else to 160 > AAC. If my ears were younger, I might have chosen 192 or even 256 AAC, > discarding mp3 less than 320. VERY intersting ... thanks a lot Elliot !! H
From: Howard on 10 Jan 2010 19:48 Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: > Howard <Howard.not(a)home.com> wrote: > > > I have been looking at a change to AAC for quality purposes... > > > > Anyone already moved over to AAC for use on their iPod or in the home or > > car ? What do you think ? > > Just to chime in my bit. > > I almost exclusively buy music from iTMS now, and have converted all my > files to 256bps AAC (well, imported as AAC from non-compressed formats). > > I have a reasonable system here, with a Yamaha amp, with Castle > speakers, which are pretty good at revealing poor sources. On that I am > happy enough listening to AACs through Airport, which sound rather good > to me. > > If I want to be fussy, I go with vinyl, but generally, I can't usually > tell AACs apart from commercial CDs (which I find can be very variable > in quality anyway - some can be really heavily compressed (audio, not > file)). Tks Andy H
From: D.M. Procida on 11 Jan 2010 02:51
Howard <Howard.not(a)home.com> wrote: > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > > It's been iTunes's default encoder for nearly a decade, hasn't it? > Well ... let's face it the vast majority of users use MP3. Hence my > question. I think most iTunes users - which means the vast majority of iPod users (which means every single person on the planet and no doubt even on other planets as long as there are Apple stores or Tescos there) - use AAC without even realising. So there may be far more AAC users than you expect. Daniele |