IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Converting from lossless to portable, any reason to prefer AAC or MP3?, Was “AAC or MP3 for mobile listening convertyed from Lossless AAC”
izzyfinhaifa
post Dec 4 2011, 00:01
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 11-April 04
Member No.: 13421



I've got lots of CD's that have been backed up to lossless AAC. This is the archive.

I have a few music players, most do AAC, all do MP3. Is there any physical reason why I should choose one format over another, when i convert down for portable listening? I will probably go for 320 MP3, or the equivalent in AAC.

Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
kennedyb4
post Dec 15 2011, 23:35
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 772
Joined: 3-October 01
Member No.: 180



Just a quick re direct.

The samples in this test,
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/i...-a/results.html

were codec killers and the QT scores were way above 4 meaning that any artifacts were perceptible but not annoying. This is frequently after multiple trials to find a suspected artifact and repeated headphone abx runs to confirm the error.

I have to concur that anything above 128 QT constrained or TVBR is overkill on a portable.

Samples from less complex passages re even harder to pick up. I found myself trying to pick out the lowpasses rather than actual artifacts.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- izzyfinhaifa   Converting from lossless to portable, any reason to prefer AAC or MP3?   Dec 4 2011, 00:01
- - saratoga   QUOTE (izzyfinhaifa @ Dec 3 2011, 19:01) ...   Dec 4 2011, 00:11
|- - izzyfinhaifa   Sorry, I meant ALAC. Thanks for the opinion.   Dec 4 2011, 00:21
- - Silversight   At bitrates that high, it really doesn't matte...   Dec 6 2011, 16:14
|- - izzyfinhaifa   QUOTE (Silversight @ Dec 6 2011, 08:14) A...   Dec 7 2011, 02:59
- - saratoga   160k VBR is probably a good balance. For MP3 lame...   Dec 7 2011, 03:00
|- - izzyfinhaifa   QUOTE (saratoga @ Dec 6 2011, 19:00) 160k...   Dec 11 2011, 14:00
- - kennedyb4   Please have a look at the results of the 96kbps se...   Dec 11 2011, 14:41
- - Brand   I haven't tried them at low bitrates, but I re...   Dec 11 2011, 16:04
|- - C.R.Helmrich   Thanks a lot, Kennedy, for introducing the topic s...   Dec 11 2011, 16:39
|- - IgorC   QUOTE (Brand @ Dec 11 2011, 12:04) I have...   Dec 11 2011, 17:21
- - Brand   @ C.R.Helmrich: Sure. Would you mind converting it...   Dec 11 2011, 16:52
|- - C.R.Helmrich   QUOTE (Brand @ Dec 11 2011, 17:52) @ C.R....   Dec 11 2011, 22:38
|- - C.R.Helmrich   QUOTE (C.R.Helmrich @ Dec 11 2011, 23:38)...   Dec 13 2011, 22:46
|- - Brand   Thanks C.R. Judging by a quick test with this sam...   Dec 14 2011, 21:09
|- - C.R.Helmrich   QUOTE (Brand @ Dec 14 2011, 22:09) *I...   Dec 15 2011, 09:09
|- - lvqcl   QUOTE (C.R.Helmrich @ Dec 15 2011, 12:09)...   Dec 15 2011, 15:44
- - /mnt   I find QuickTime AAC at 160kbps VBR (CVBR) to be j...   Dec 12 2011, 01:53
- - kennedyb4   Just a quick re direct. The samples in this test,...   Dec 15 2011, 23:35


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th July 2014 - 13:29