General Discussion General discussion about all things car audio, from pioneer, orion, alpine and eclipse.

AAC Bitrate and sound quality

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-27-2005, 04:49 PM
  #1  
500 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Kool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 662
Post

Hi Guys,

I'm going to start ripping my entire CD collection to AAC format so I don't have to carry my huge CD case around anymore and was wondering how much of a difference the bit rate makes.

Is there a noticable difference between 128K and 256K?
Kool is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 04:54 PM
  #2  
1000 Watt CAFz'r
iTrader: (3)
 
SQ Civic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,185
Post

yes. the difference between 128k, and 190k for example is a lot more noticable than say 190k to 256k. Either way I would be more inclined to rip them at the higher bitrate unless space is a huge factor.

Remember, you can always re-encode a 256k track down to 128k, but you can't go from 128k to 256k if you changed your mind afterwards.

regards, Mark
SQ Civic is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 06:51 PM
  #3  
2000 Watt CAFz'r
iTrader: (3)
 
veeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,455
Post

Yeah, stay in the 190k range, all my music is ripped now for the same reason(space), and I can barely tell the difference between the original and the ripped. Some types of music can be ripped at lower bit rates depending on their type as they may have poor frequency extension and sonics in general, (old folk or 50's or 60's music) with little effect on the overall sound quality. Experiment and decide for yourself.
veeman is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 07:02 PM
  #4  
500 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Kool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 662
Post

I'm going to go w/ 256K I think. Would there be much of a difference between that and 320K?
Kool is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 09:46 PM
  #5  
1000 Watt CAFz'r
iTrader: (3)
 
SQ Civic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,185
Post

Originally posted by Kool:
I'm going to go w/ 256K I think. Would there be much of a difference between that and 320K?
I doubt you'd be able to tell. I can't tell a differnce between 256, and 320... 128 and 190 if a whole different story.

Mark
SQ Civic is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 09:47 PM
  #6  
1000 Watt CAFz'r
iTrader: (3)
 
SQ Civic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,185
Post

Originally posted by veeman:
old folk or 50's or 60's music) with little effect on the overall sound quality.
That is unless the tracks have been "Digitally Remastered" [img]graemlins/jack.gif[/img]

[img]graemlins/headbang.gif[/img] Mark
SQ Civic is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 10:23 PM
  #7  
500 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Kool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 662
Post

Thanks guys [img]smile.gif[/img]
Kool is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 11:58 AM
  #8  
1000 Watt CAFz'r
 
JRace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,242
Post

Why AAC and not MP3?
JRace is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 03:44 PM
  #9  
500 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Kool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 662
Post

B/c the files are for sole use w/ an Ipod. I decided to rip everything in Apple LossLess format though.

But I do believe AAC to be a better choice than MP3 b/c it provides better sound at the same compression as MP3 and it is likely to replace MP3 as the standard lossy format.

[ July 28, 2005, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Kool ]
Kool is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 08:03 PM
  #10  
1000 Watt CAFz'r
iTrader: (3)
 
SQ Civic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,185
Post

Originally posted by Kool:
B/c the files are for sole use w/ an Ipod. I decided to rip everything in Apple LossLess format though.
I do agree with what you just said, just as a side note, it wasn't apple who developed the format, they have jsut brought attention to it since the Ipod was introduced.
and you do lose quality with the compression. just as with an MP3, any time the music track is compressed you are losing some amount of quality, big or small. AAC does have better handling than MP3 when compression between the 2 are compared. I just wanted to comment on the "LossLess" term you used.
just an FYI, Mark [img]graemlins/headbang.gif[/img]

[ July 28, 2005, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: SQ Civic ]
SQ Civic is offline  


Quick Reply: AAC Bitrate and sound quality



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:40 PM.