Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

AAC or MP3 which is better?

  • 29-11-2003 4:28pm
    #1
    dwayneburke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 731 ✭✭✭


    AAC or MP3 which is better?


Comments

  • #2
    ZENER
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,163 ✭✭✭ZENER


    Try this site for a comparison:

    www.firstpr.com.au/audiocomp/aac-mp3-vq.html

    Basically though the mp3 format has been around over 12 years now and in truth is showing it's age. Having said that it has become a widely adopted standard.

    Technology marches on however and AAC has overtaken mp3 in the quality versus filesize stakes. An MP3 at 128Kbps offers the same quality as an AAC at 96Kbps. This means smaller files to download from the internet or to store on a hard disk.

    The fly in the ointment is that of license restrictions, AAC is being well protected and as such may cost player manufacturers more to include in its equipment. The format also offers facilities for music companies to protect there material from copying.

    Check the website above for more links and information.

    Tinky


  • #3
    Kali
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,601 ✭✭✭Kali


    Originally posted by tinky
    Try this site for a comparison:

    www.firstpr.com.au/audiocomp/aac-mp3-vq.html

    Which funnily enough is the first google result for "aac mp3" .. when will people learn of its greatness :)


  • #4
    dwayneburke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 731 ✭✭✭dwayneburke


    Cheers lads,

    So in your opionion do you think it is worth my while to redo all my cd's in AAC rather than Mp3...????

    Also am i right in saying it is pointless just converting the MP3's ;on my pc to AAC i.e. do they have to be burned originally from cd?


  • #5
    sceptre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Originally posted by dwayneburke
    Also am i right in saying it is pointless just converting the MP3's ;on my pc to AAC i.e. do they have to be burned originally from cd?
    They don't /have/ to be but you'd be converting from one lossy format to another. just like converting between lossy picture formats it won't give you as good a sound as converting from an uncompressed source.

    Plus by converting from mp3 to aac you're gaining absolutely nothing from the advances that aac has made - you're carrying across all the artifacts from a format of lesser quality.


  • #6
    dwayneburke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 731 ✭✭✭dwayneburke


    Bottom line lads!!! Which format would yee choose??


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Mailman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭Mailman


    I'd buy the one that has the best chance of playing on an unspecified MP3 player or DVD player that one may elect to purchase at some time in the future.

    So, I'm sticking with MP3 as a format but doing everything I can to improve the quality of the tracks I rip.


  • #8
    sceptre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Originally posted by Mailman
    So, I'm sticking with MP3 as a format but doing everything I can to improve the quality of the tracks I rip.
    Ditto. I usually rip at 192 or 256 (with a good encoder - stay the hell away from the Xing one you find in a lot of rippers as it gives a very tinny sound), any time I doanload a track I try to get at least 192


Advertisement