| Author |
Which format for listening to the music is better, MP3 or AAC |
himlims_nl
Joined: Apr 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
PM |
depends on your bitrate mainly, however i prefere ogg over any other format
i think it sounds better but it's just me |
|
|
Intrigue
Joined: Jun 19, 2008
Posts: 31
PM |
On 2008-08-15 11:40:24, Fanofmodi wrote:
Can someone tell me how to convert mp3 to aac. Is their any program and where can i download? Thanks
USe iTunes.  |
tai020381
Joined: Dec 07, 2004
Posts: > 500
PM |
Try SUPER Converter. It converts anything - videos (3gp,mp4,m4a,mpg ...) music(ogg,m4a,aac,mp3,ape ...) etc and is FREE. (donate if you wish)
http://www.erightsoft.com/SUPER.html
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
On 2008-08-15 13:32:10, aldrinus wrote:
@max_wedge:
yo matey thanks for the information..
i actually researched about the technicalities of these two popular formats right after i posted that.. many thanks, mate!
i still prefer mp3 though
I used to use AAC (especially in the early days when I had the K700 - 40MB only and no memory expansion), but now with 8GB memory cards I've reverted back to MP3 (which in my view sounds warmer and fuller than the clinical sound of AAC)
I usually encode at 320Kbps MP3. Either way, I've found 256Kbps and higher bitrates are necessary on most players regardless of codec. If you rip any lower than that you miss so much detail from the music it's like listening with ear muffs rather than headphones !!
|
QVGA
Joined: May 23, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Pakistan
PM, WWW
|
with regular headphones, i doubt you can notice the difference between these two
|
kimot01
Joined: Jul 06, 2007
Posts: > 500
From:
PM |
if you rip the music directly from a CD or download music from itunes, use the AAC format., but if you download music from limewire (or other programs) even if you convert it and use the highest bit rate, it's useless
you can always find one if you know where to look i  myself |
plankgatan
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden fur alle
PM |
eAAC+ (or AAC) is best codec. (my oppinion)
_________________
I  C902,  W810 &  T29
------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21179102@N07/
(t610, t630, k700, k750, k800, k810, k850)
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2008-08-15 17:17 ] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
On 2008-08-15 18:05:26, QVGA wrote:
with regular headphones, i doubt you can notice the difference between these two
at lower bitrates yes, but at higher bitrates the difference is more discernible. High quality headserts can easily capture the detail of lower bitrates that would be missed completely by regular headsets. But in reverse, regular headsets need higher bitrates to get the best out of them.
Of course ideally high quality headsets AND large bitrates is the best solution. There is much denigration directed at the SE headsets (HPM-70 etc) but tbh I find them to be of reasonably high quality. Okay not like a $200 pair of sennheisers or whatever but still better than average.
My W910 plus HPM-70 plus 320Kbps MP3 delivers crystal clear high quality audio. I believe most people who denigrate the SE supplied walkman headsets (such as hpm-70) listen to mostly 128Kbps encoded tracks and hence need exceptionally good headsets to get every nuance of detail out of the low bitrate. If those people converted to 320Kbps and used HPM-70 instead of their fancy over-priced headdsets they'd be surprised how much better it sounds.
I challenge anyone who currently listens to 192Kbps (mp3) / 128Kbps (AAC) or lower bitrates to upgrade their music to 320Kbps before they claim their supplied walkman headsets are "regular" quality.
|
strizlow800
Joined: Aug 23, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Macedonia, Skopje
PM |
Well I have been trying both for some time... At the end as I use max bitrate and quality settings, I don't find any big difference between these two. I like using MP3 320kbps now. It is just great with my p1 .
|
QVGA
Joined: May 23, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Pakistan
PM, WWW
|
On 2008-08-15 20:05:41, max_wedge wrote:
On 2008-08-15 18:05:26, QVGA wrote:
with regular headphones, i doubt you can notice the difference between these two
at lower bitrates yes, but at higher bitrates the difference is more discernible. High quality headserts can easily capture the detail of lower bitrates that would be missed completely by regular headsets. But in reverse, regular headsets need higher bitrates to get the best out of them.
Of course ideally high quality headsets AND large bitrates is the best solution. There is much denigration directed at the SE headsets (HPM-70 etc) but tbh I find them to be of reasonably high quality. Okay not like a $200 pair of sennheisers or whatever but still better than average.
My W910 plus HPM-70 plus 320Kbps MP3 delivers crystal clear high quality audio. I believe most people who denigrate the SE supplied walkman headsets (such as hpm-70) listen to mostly 128Kbps encoded tracks and hence need exceptionally good headsets to get every nuance of detail out of the low bitrate. If those people converted to 320Kbps and used HPM-70 instead of their fancy over-priced headdsets they'd be surprised how much better it sounds.
I challenge anyone who currently listens to 192Kbps (mp3) / 128Kbps (AAC) or lower bitrates to upgrade their music to 320Kbps before they claim their supplied walkman headsets are "regular" quality.
with my W950 + DS970 which do you prefer? 320kbps MP3? Will i notice a difference from 128kbps?
Also, do i just have a simply convert my mp3 files into 320kbps to effectively change them or do they have to be ripped from the CD directly at 320?
And which program do you prefer to convert the files in bulk. I have almost 250 of them. Thanks.
|
strizlow800
Joined: Aug 23, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Macedonia, Skopje
PM |
Well, low end headphones won't make big difference, but when using high end (more expensive) and quality headset there should be some difference in sound quality between 192 and 320 kbps... . At least, those numbers offer so much. 
|
TeenInvader
Joined: May 13, 2005
Posts: 398
From: South Africa - Jo'burg
PM, WWW
|
Mp3 for life 320k on pc and 192k on phone.
Storage space is not a problem.
http://www.myspace.com/teeninvader |
unforgiven_sh
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
Posts: 176
PM |
format (encoding) is one thing and bitrate is another and they have nothing in common
and the fact that 320kbps track will sound better than the 192kbps one is nothing new
the name of the topic is "Which format for listening to the music is better, MP3 or AAC" and i couldnt hear any difference between the VBR 128kbps aac and CBR 128kbps mp3 song (i converted the same wav file twice, using LAME and FAAC without changing the default converting presset)
peace 
|
strizlow800
Joined: Aug 23, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Macedonia, Skopje
PM |
On 2008-08-16 14:16:00, TeenInvader wrote:
Mp3 for life 320k on pc and 192k on phone.
Storage space is not a problem.
Well yeah I don't count on saving space when it comes to quality and experience .
|
voda_jon
Joined: Nov 28, 2004
Posts: > 500
PM |
@qvga....
rip directly from the cd at 320 as u wont be doing anything by trying to up the rate from 192 to 320 as u cant 'improve' the sound as its already lost the bits to begin with!
and i do agree if u want better sound invest in some very good headphones with a decent range on both bass and treble, u wont regret it!
I thought my w980i had good sound usin the bundled headphones but i spent some money on top end skull candy headphones and now i cant stop listening as the sound is much much better. all encoded to 320kbps ACC as they offer more depth than mp3 and for audiophiles the majority will use ACC over MP3....
The clinical feel of ACC is due to losing less in the transcoding... u are hearing everything that was recorded...
J. |
|
|
Posted: 2008-08-15 13:51
myself
