Hmm, 256 kbps AAC vs 320 kbps MP3..

Lord Dweedle · 11-24-2012, 03:38 PM

Ok so my scenario at the moment is I'm trying to decide on what format to use on my iPod.

I will be using this iPod on my computer to store my custom made playlists so it will be playing through my PC speaker stereo setup.. its pretty good sound quality at 320 kbps MP3 and I love it.

But, my iPod is only an 8GB Nano, so can only hold a limited number of tracks. According to my research thus far if I convert my songs via iTunes to 256 kbps AAC I could fit another 200 or so more songs onto my iPod which would be fantastic.

However, I am looking for opinions on this.. now, I only plan on playing my music on my iPod through some Sennheiser PX 100 ii's on the go and my Logitec Z506 PC surround sound speaker system when I'm at home (via iTunes, anyone know a better media player?).

I really do want to fit these 200 songs on my playlist, but I am willing to sacrifice some songs from my iPod if 320 kbps is better.

Guybrush · 11-24-2012, 04:50 PM

I honestly don't think you'll hear much difference so if space is an issue, go with a space-saving option. If you have very good ears, you might hear a difference with your Sennheiser headphones on, but nothing that will really decrease your enjoyment of the music (even if you think you can hear a difference, that doesn't mean you, in a blind test, would be be able to clearly identify one as having a lower sound quality).

Just whatever you do, don't convert from a lossy source to another a lossy format. So don't convert f.ex 320 kbps MP3s to AAC 256 kbps. If your source is MP3 files at 320 kbps (rather than f.ex a CD), let them stay that way.

Lord Dweedle · 11-24-2012, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I honestly don't think you'll hear much difference so if space is an issue, go with a space-saving option. If you have very good ears, you might hear a difference with your Sennheiser headphones on, but nothing that will really decrease your enjoyment of the music (even if you think you can hear a difference, that doesn't mean you, in a blind test, would be be able to clearly identify one as having a lower sound quality).

Just whatever you do, don't convert from a lossy source to another a lossy format. So don't convert f.ex 320 kbps MP3s to AAC 256 kbps. If your source is MP3 files at 320 kbps (rather than f.ex a CD), let them stay that way.

I think I will keep them at 320kbps then, as my main source is CD's ripped at 320kbps and I would be converting those 320's to 256's AAC.

the storage isnt a huge problem as its only about 200ish songs im going to miss out on, I just have to refine my playlists abit more lol

Guybrush · 11-24-2012, 05:11 PM

Yeah, if you want 256 AACs, you should re-rip them from the CD source.

The reason you shouldn't convert 320 kbps mp3s to another lossy format is of course that when you created the mp3s in the first place, you lost a lot of audio information. That's why MP3 is called a lossy format. If you then create a lossy version (AAC) of an already lossy source (MP3), that means an even greater reduction in audio information than if you'd gone back to rip from a lossless source.

It's one of the reasons music ripping from f.ex youtube videos makes me cringe. Lossy from lossy is a disease!

11-24-2012, 03:38 PM	#1 (permalink)
Lord Dweedle Music Addict Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 127	Hmm, 256 kbps AAC vs 320 kbps MP3.. Ok so my scenario at the moment is I'm trying to decide on what format to use on my iPod. I will be using this iPod on my computer to store my custom made playlists so it will be playing through my PC speaker stereo setup.. its pretty good sound quality at 320 kbps MP3 and I love it. But, my iPod is only an 8GB Nano, so can only hold a limited number of tracks. According to my research thus far if I convert my songs via iTunes to 256 kbps AAC I could fit another 200 or so more songs onto my iPod which would be fantastic. However, I am looking for opinions on this.. now, I only plan on playing my music on my iPod through some Sennheiser PX 100 ii's on the go and my Logitec Z506 PC surround sound speaker system when I'm at home (via iTunes, anyone know a better media player?). I really do want to fit these 200 songs on my playlist, but I am willing to sacrifice some songs from my iPod if 320 kbps is better.

11-24-2012, 04:50 PM	#2 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	I honestly don't think you'll hear much difference so if space is an issue, go with a space-saving option. If you have very good ears, you might hear a difference with your Sennheiser headphones on, but nothing that will really decrease your enjoyment of the music (even if you think you can hear a difference, that doesn't mean you, in a blind test, would be be able to clearly identify one as having a lower sound quality). Just whatever you do, don't convert from a lossy source to another a lossy format. So don't convert f.ex 320 kbps MP3s to AAC 256 kbps. If your source is MP3 files at 320 kbps (rather than f.ex a CD), let them stay that way. __________________ Something Completely Different

11-24-2012, 05:11 PM	#4 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	Yeah, if you want 256 AACs, you should re-rip them from the CD source. The reason you shouldn't convert 320 kbps mp3s to another lossy format is of course that when you created the mp3s in the first place, you lost a lot of audio information. That's why MP3 is called a lossy format. If you then create a lossy version (AAC) of an already lossy source (MP3), that means an even greater reduction in audio information than if you'd gone back to rip from a lossless source. It's one of the reasons music ripping from f.ex youtube videos makes me cringe. Lossy from lossy is a disease! __________________ Something Completely Different