Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: CBR 320, MP3 or AAC (Read 10350 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Recently I have bought iPod (capacity 80 GB) and started to think about ripping some of my CD collection. I decided to go for CBR 320, although I was in doubt whether I should rather compress with apple lossless encoder. To my subjective hearing and with my equipment, I do not notice any difference between lossless and lossy compression (with CBR 320). Therefore, I decided to go for lossy cbr 320. However, I do not know whether I should compress to MP3 or to AAC format. Some says that there is no difference between MP3 and AAC when it comes to higher bit rates. Is it true? What would you do if you were in my place, mp3 or aac? Is my decision to rip with lossy compression wise? And last, but important, question: is iTunes 7 a good aac-ripper?

Sorry for many questions in just one post, but I am a newbie when it comes to the question of audio compression. So, I found this forum as a great site where much can be learned by experts and experienced users.

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Reply #1 –
quick answers

1) mp3 & aac @ 320 is pretty much the same. Most ppl can not tell the difference either way so the only deciding factor i guess would be file format. Like mp3 is more ... open so that there are a lot more devices (car cd players etc) that actually can play it, tho aac is now also gaining more support. For quality issues tho, they're both pretty much the same.

2) Itunes has been shown in various listening tests (at ~128kbps tho) to be one of hte very best aac encoders so you should have no issues with that.

3) Have you tried listening to aac/mp3 @ say 192/160/128. You might be able to encode @ a vbr of about 192 and save space as well as keeping your audio quality the same. (sound quality you can hear because if you cant tell the difference between 192 vs 360 why waste the space?)

edit:
http://www.listening-tests.info/mf-128-1/results.htm is the listening test i was talking about.

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Reply #2 –
If you're going to use MP3, make sure you use LAME, not the iTunes MP3 encoder.

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Reply #3 –
With an iPod I'd definitely use AAC, and I'd use Nero's CLI AAC encoder at a setting of -q 0.6 (~ 180 kbps) though iTune's AAC encoder is fine as well.

As for all I know AAC at such a bitrate provides for a better quality even with very bad samples than using mp3 at highest bitrate. Pre-echo prone samples like eig behave this way - other than that using mp3 at a bitrate of ~250 kbps provides for an excellent quality as well when using a good encoder.

I wouldn't use a lossless format on a mobile DAP. I just gave up using very high bitrate wavPack lossy on my DAP. wavPack lossy is a great format but unfortunately makes booting into a directory with wavPack-Files such a power consumptive process that I can do it only when my battery is loaded pretty well.
It must not be the same thing using ALAC on the iPod, but I'd be afraid it is.
Moreover lossless quality isn't really needed for mere listening (as opposed to archiving). It's hard to imagine you'll find an issue using a high quality AAC encoder @ ~180 kbps.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Reply #4 –
Thanks for your replies!

Quote
edekba: Have you tried listening to aac/mp3 @ say 192/160/128. You might be able to encode @ a vbr of about 192 and save space as well as keeping your audio quality the same. (sound quality you can hear because if you cant tell the difference between 192 vs 360 why waste the space?)


Before using iPod, I used to rip only mp3s. My first CDs were ripped at 128, then I moved on to rip at 160, and afterwards at 192. Now, almost all my mp3-collection is ripped at 192. The reason for having beeen sticking to 192 is that I could tell the difference between 128, 160 and 192. However, I have difficulties to tell the difference between 192 and 320.

Quote
halb27: I wouldn't use a lossless format on a mobile DAP. I just gave up using very high bitrate wavPack lossy on my DAP. wavPack lossy is a great format but unfortunately makes booting into a directory with wavPack-Files such a power consumptive process that I can do it only when my battery is loaded pretty well. (...) It must not be the same thing using ALAC on the iPod, but I'd be afraid it is.


I was not clear about this problem. Thanks for the information.

Quote
halb27: Moreover lossless quality isn't really needed for mere listening (as opposed to archiving). It's hard to imagine you'll find an issue using a high quality AAC encoder @ ~180 kbps.


Oh, I see. That's a good point about listening vs archiving.

Thanks to both edekba's and halb27's points, I begin to doubt about ripping at 320. I think that it would be more wise to stick to 192.

From your experience, is aac better than mp3 at 192?

Firon and halb27, thanks for your advice on considerations about mp3- and aac-rippers. I am not sure how to use Nero aac-decoder; it seems too complicated without gui. However, I have Nero 7 Premium. Can I use it for aac-ripping?

Kindly regards,
Theophilios

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Reply #5 –
Quote
From your experience, is aac better than mp3 at 192?


At bitrates 160 and higher and especially on an ipod it wont make much difference if any at all.  So its what you prefer to use really. And whats most important is what you can perceive, not anyone else or your neighbor.  They won't be listening to your ipod, you will.

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Reply #6 –
Quote from: spockep on
Quote
From your experience, is aac better than mp3 at 192?


At bitrates 160 and higher and especially on an ipod it wont make much difference if any at all.  So its what you prefer to use really. And whats most important is what you can perceive, not anyone else or your neighbor.  They won't be listening to your ipod, you will.

Why use 320CBR and not some VBR, like V0? I mean, 320 is 50% bigger in size, and <1% more transparent... (both guesses)
Les mots d'amour...

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Reply #7 –
Quote from: leokennis on
Quote from: spockep on

Quote
From your experience, is aac better than mp3 at 192?


At bitrates 160 and higher and especially on an ipod it wont make much difference if any at all.  So its what you prefer to use really. And whats most important is what you can perceive, not anyone else or your neighbor.  They won't be listening to your ipod, you will.

Why use 320CBR and not some VBR, like V0? I mean, 320 is 50% bigger in size, and <1% more transparent... (both guesses)



Very good point leokennis.  I couldn't agree more.  But just to clarify I was referring to the AAC vs. mp3 question.  They are both very good codecs.  And either of those at a vbr ~192 would be sufficient. 

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Reply #8 –
Well, there's certain problem samples that VBR doesn't handle very well. ABR does a better job at >200kbps with those samples, and naturally 320kbps CBR does a better job, at the expense of larger files.

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Theophilios on
... From your experience, is aac better than mp3 at 192? ...

... considerations about mp3- and aac-rippers ....

At  ~192 kbps you usually won't hear a diference, but as you can hear differences with mp3 on regular music when going from 128 kbps to 160 and 192 kbps your hearing abilities are pretty good, and as such you may worry about the rare but existing cases where mp3 has weaknesses.
You can try for yourself with for instance these samples which you will find here on HA when searching for them:
  • eig
  • harp40_1
  • herding_calls
  • trumpet
The first two samples provide a problem for the encoder regarding temporal resolution. Helix is the only mp3 encoder to give me a satisfying result with eig at very high bitrate (and I'm pretty deaf towards temporal resolution problems). With harp40_1 it's not that bad, but it requires a bitrate above 200 kbps to get satisfying results. herding_calls and trumpet sound like simple samples but are difficult samples for various encoders.

These samples show that there are tracks where at least a higher bitrate is neccessary than the one that is usually required. Using VBR in theory can solve these problems but in practice it depends heavenly upon encoder implementation whether or not that's true. As to my current best kowledge Helix VBR is working very well, and also current Lame 3.98 is going to get a good VBR mode. Fraunhofer VBR and VBR of Lame versions prior to 3.98 however have a questionable VBR mode when it is about guaranteing quality.
Taking it altogether I'd say for people with good hearing abilities using mp3 at 192 kbps may be a bit too low with respect to critical parts of music.

AAC in principle has the same problem in that a higher bitrate or quality setting is needed for these samples than is ususally needed. However a good AAC encoder provides excellent quality at a quality setting of ~ 128 kbps, and going ~180 kbps provides for an excellent quality even for these difficult samples.
You can find out for yourself, and as your hearing probably is better than mine you may wish to vary parameters a bit.

You should think of the ripping process and the encoding process as two different processes (that can be combined). You needn't necessarily rip and encode using Nero. Most people here use EAC (Exact Audio Copy) for ripping. With EAC you can combine the ripping process with the encoding process by integrating any commandline encoder like Nero's free AAC CLI encoder. I personally keep it as independent processes, rip to wavs using EAC, and encode the wavs using foobar.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Firon on
Well, there's certain problem samples that VBR doesn't handle very well. ABR does a better job at >200kbps with those samples, and naturally 320kbps CBR does a better job, at the expense of larger files.

Of course you're right. But are you willing to spend 50% more diskspace for 10 seconds of music 320CBR can handle and V0 can't?
Les mots d'amour...

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Reply #11 –
Not only that we are talking about listening to this on a Ipod.  Ipod isn't exactly what I would call an audiophiles DAP of choice.

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Reply #12 –
Quote from: halb27 on
...
You can try for yourself with for instance these samples which you will find here on HA when searching for them:
  • eig
  • harp40_1
  • herding_calls
  • trumpet

to the OP: I strongly advise you to NOT listen to problem samples, you will learn what ugly artifacts lossy compression introduces and you will be then listening for these artifacts even in normal music all the time, ruining your listening experience. If you want to decide if a lossy compression format/setting is good enough for you, encode music that you normally listen to (and then do an ABX test etc.)

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Reply #13 –
Quote from: jmartis on
... to the OP: I strongly advise you to NOT listen to problem samples, you will learn what ugly artifacts lossy compression introduces and you will be then listening for these artifacts even in normal music all the time ...


Yes, there's a lot of truth in it. Not starting to ABX problem samples keeps life a lot easier.

So a better and short advice is simply: If someone can use AAC on his DAP, AAC at ~ 180 kbps (for instance Nero CLI AAC encoder with -q 0.6) gives him excellent quality.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Reply #14 –
[/quote]
Why use 320CBR and not some VBR, like V0? I mean, 320 is 50% bigger in size, and <1% more transparent... (both guesses)
[/quote]

Search for a thread on the mp3 forums about iPods skipping when playing VBR files so VBR is not a safe bet on the iPod. (Doing a search I've noticed that that entire discussion has dissapeared and it was some 30+ pages long, is apple up to no good)

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Reply #15 –
[quote name='Zster' date='Jan 31 2007, 16:02' post='468387']
[/quote]
Why use 320CBR and not some VBR, like V0? I mean, 320 is 50% bigger in size, and <1% more transparent... (both guesses)
[/quote]

Search for a thread on the mp3 forums about iPods skipping when playing VBR files so VBR is not a safe bet on the iPod. (Doing a search I've noticed that that entire discussion has dissapeared and it was some 30+ pages long, is apple up to no good)
[/quote]
90% of my mp3's are VBR, and I never had a skipping problem on my iPod 4G...
Les mots d'amour...

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Reply #16 –
[quote name='leokennis' date='Jan 31 2007, 16:41' post='468400']
[quote name='Zster' date='Jan 31 2007, 16:02' post='468387']
[/quote]
Why use 320CBR and not some VBR, like V0? I mean, 320 is 50% bigger in size, and <1% more transparent... (both guesses)
[/quote]

Search for a thread on the mp3 forums about iPods skipping when playing VBR files so VBR is not a safe bet on the iPod. (Doing a search I've noticed that that entire discussion has dissapeared and it was some 30+ pages long, is apple up to no good)
[/quote]
90% of my mp3's are VBR, and I never had a skipping problem on my iPod 4G...
[/quote]

AFAIK:
- the vbr skipping problem occurred with some files on the 1st gen Nano
- it has been fixed in the latest firmware
- 2nd gen Nano doesn't have it
- the shuffle and the ipod classic have never had the problem in the first place

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Reply #17 –
Actually, my 3G and 4G iPods would skip when using Lame VBR mp3s and others have had this problem as well so it existed with the classic iPods.  It was fixed with the 5G iPods, 1G shuffles, and 2G iPod nanos (to my knowledge, I don't think anyone has complained of problems yet).

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Reply #18 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
Actually, my 3G and 4G iPods would skip when using Lame VBR mp3s and others have had this problem as well so it existed with the classic iPods.  It was fixed with the 5G iPods, 1G shuffles, and 2G iPod nanos (to my knowledge, I don't think anyone has complained of problems yet).

Not to wander too far off-topic, but I have a variety of LAME VBR mp3's, self-encoded and internet downloads, from LAME 3.90 to 3.98 Alpha, from old 192VBR's to APS's and brand new V0's. My iPod is 2 years old and has had all the firmware's there have been since january 2005. I never had any skipping problem. Actually my iPod never skipped ever, or at least for as far as I can remember...
Les mots d'amour...

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Reply #19 –
Thanks for your advice and suggestions. They were all helpful.

CBR 320, MP3 or AAC

Reply #20 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
Actually, my 3G and 4G iPods would skip when using Lame VBR mp3s and others have had this problem as well so it existed with the classic iPods.  It was fixed with the 5G iPods, 1G shuffles, and 2G iPod nanos (to my knowledge, I don't think anyone has complained of problems yet).
It was also fixed in the last firmware update for the 1G Nano, which predated the 2G nano.  Wow, this thread is off topic... and probably violates at least 1 forum rule.