| Author |
AAC vs MP3 on the K750 |
johnpete
Joined: Sep 20, 2005
Posts: 60
PM |
Has anyone tried to compare the audio quality output in the K750 of CDs encoded in AAC (m4a) versus MP3?
I tried encoding a couple of songs in AAC 128kbps using iTunes and then in MP3 (Lame) 128kbps. File size and sound quality are pretty much the same (at least to me). I'm not very good with audio tests and would appreciate if someone would be able to suggest a good compromise between file size and audio quality.
I've found in most audio discussions that AAC vs MP3 would depend pretty much on a person's preferences and equipment used. But for the K750, what would be the best format with the lowest possible bitrate that offers acceptable mobile sound output? I don't plan to plug my K750 into my car stereo or anything like that, but just me and my headphones while commuting to/from work, jogging, or while eating/sitting in a cafe. |
|
|
blackspot
Joined: Sep 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Philippines
PM |
If you're happy with a 128Kbps mp3 then you should be fine with a 112 kbps mp4 (aac). You'll save few hundred kilobytes per song but won't notice any difference in the quality.
resistance is futile. |
johnpete
Joined: Sep 20, 2005
Posts: 60
PM |
So 112 kbps in AAC is comparable to 128 MP3? Or does it in fact sound better (like a lot of iPod hype write-ups say)? Would a kbps lower than 112 in AAC still produce an acceptable output for the K750?
I'll try to do some tests soon as well, but I'd really like to see the results that others are getting with their own units. When I bought my K750i, I was pleasantly surprised that I can now leave my mp3 player behind. That's a fundamental difference I found from PDAs, most of which had media player outputs that leave much to be desired. |
johnpete
Joined: Sep 20, 2005
Posts: 60
PM |
I'd also like to ask if anyone has done tests to compare the audio output of units with the R1K001 firmware vs the SEUS firmware. I know it does a neat job for the user interphase, but what about the audio output? Is there a big difference? |
ares
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Coimbra, Portugal
PM |
IMHO a 128kbs aac is compared to a 160kbs or 192kbs mp3
There´s no discussion, aac is a newer and superior format when compared with mp3
i only use aac in the k750, in my pc and in my xbox...i have converted all my mp3 to the new format
SE w880 + Iphone 4 16gb |
randomtask77
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Posts: 313
PM |
What software do you guys use to convert MP3 to AAC? |
private
Joined: Feb 04, 2005
Posts: 344
PM |
what i have heard is 96kbps aac = 128kbps mp3. also the aac must be directly ripped from a cd to produce better results. if converting from mp3, sound quality remains the same.
|
ares
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Coimbra, Portugal
PM |
I converted all my 192kbs mp3 to 128aac´s...they sound the same
I use itunes and sometimes dbpoweramp |
Grimslade
Joined: Jul 25, 2004
Posts: 464
From: London
PM |
One thing that may be of interest in this regard, although it's not sound-quality-related, is that the K750 can read the meta-tags on MP3 files, but apparently cannot on AAC files. So you have more info about your tracks accessible if you use MP3 format than if you use AAC.
In case that matters to anyone here.
 |
danska
Joined: Aug 03, 2005
Posts: 83
PM |
I know it's kinda overkill, but i usually use aac 192 for normal songs or 320kbps for really good songs.. |
Shit_Happens
Joined: Aug 24, 2005
Posts: 30
PM |
i once read that AAC 64kbps = 128kbps mp3.
i tried one of the songs i have, converted it to 64kbps aac from mp3 128kbps and didnt notice much difference.
Though i still prefer mp3's... |
daeid
Joined: Jan 06, 2004
Posts: 30
PM |
What you all are missing is that converting from one lossy format to anothe can not make it sound better. Once a file is encoded in mp3 or aac or ogg some data is lost, you can never get it back. However comparing a cd ripped to the different formats will produce different quality. Ogg and aac are superior to mp3, but not if you recompress an mp3. Look at hydrogenaudio's forums for comparisons. And get a better pair of headphones.
This message was posted from a T610 |
daeid
Joined: Jan 06, 2004
Posts: 30
PM |
for a quick comparison of different lossy formats check out this page http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html
as you can see from the charts ogg vorbis is almost always on top, and in the final results aac is only slightly better than mp3, whereas musepac (mpc) and ogg vorbis are definately superior. with windows audio and sonys (now outdated and hopefully dead) atrac3 pulling up the rear quite sadly.. this is a test done at 128kbps. |
danska
Joined: Aug 03, 2005
Posts: 83
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2005-09-20 21:18:28, Shit_Happens wrote:
i once read that AAC 64kbps = 128kbps mp3.
i tried one of the songs i have, converted it to 64kbps aac from mp3 128kbps and didnt notice much difference.
Though i still prefer mp3's...
|
|
The songs i have are not converted from mp3's but actually encoded at 320kbps aac. |
blackspot
Joined: Sep 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Philippines
PM |
I've been experimenting with sound qualities of mp3 and mp4 and I have always stuck to 128 kbps mp3 for my compilation because of the id3tags. The sound quality is practically the same as the original to my ear. For aac, I can already hear obvious degradation when using bitrates lower than 112 kbps so I keep a minimum of 112 kbps if I need it to be in aac format.
resistance is futile. |
|
|
Posted: 2005-09-20 11:41
