AAC for ipods ? anyone ?
in [UK Mac]
|
From: SM on 11 Jan 2010 03:32 Howard <Howard.not(a)home.com> wrote: > > 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 !! There's info here: <http://productionadvice.co.uk/why-mp3-sounds-bad/> Stuart -- cut that out to reply
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 11 Jan 2010 04:08 On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 22:43:44 +0000, Howard.not(a)home.com (Howard) 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 ? If both are well encoded, AAC sounds a bit better than MP3 at the same bit rate. But if you're listening to high bitrate of either or through little earphones or a car stereo while moving, it really won't make any difference at all. Even over a competent stereo system at home, once you get over 160kbit AAC/192kbit MP3 (again, well encoded), few people could double-blind tell which is in use - against each other or against source CD. (and no, I'm not interested in anecdotes or bluster otherwise. Experimental results only, thanks). Cheers - Jaimie -- Now I lay me down to sleep Try to count electric sheep Sweet dream wishes you can keep How I hate the night. - Marvin the paranoid android
From: David Kennedy on 11 Jan 2010 04:08 Howard 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.. > > H I have imported as AAC for some years now although I have some stuff as MP3 as the car will play MP3 discs. Not normally as good though. -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com
From: James Jolley on 11 Jan 2010 04:19 On 2010-01-11 09:08:09 +0000, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> said: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 22:43:44 +0000, Howard.not(a)home.com (Howard) > 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 ? > > If both are well encoded, AAC sounds a bit better than MP3 at the same > bit rate. But if you're listening to high bitrate of either or through > little earphones or a car stereo while moving, it really won't make > any difference at all. > > Even over a competent stereo system at home, once you get over 160kbit > AAC/192kbit MP3 (again, well encoded), few people could double-blind > tell which is in use - against each other or against source CD. > > (and no, I'm not interested in anecdotes or bluster otherwise. > Experimental results only, thanks). > > Cheers - Jaimie I agree with this. 192 KBPS is perfectly fine for what i've used it with.
From: J. J. Lodder on 11 Jan 2010 04:59
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 ? The de-facto standard for lossless audio is .flac It is time for Apple to adapt, and admit .flac playback directly just as they have accepted .mp3 for lossy audio, Jan |