256 aac vs mp3 - which sounds better

I'm interested in buying a few albums via download.

Which usually sounds better - aac from iTunes or mp3 from Amazon?

Both are 256 I believe.

Thanks!

 

Maybe AAC I think I heard once, but you probably can't tell the difference

 

The iTunes will sound better. 256kbps AAC sound like 320kbps mp3 files.

The Amazon purchases will only be 256kbps mp3s.

You might try 7Digital or Google Play store. They both have 320kbps downloads in mp3. Better than Amazon, but maybe not quite the selection.

 

AAC is vastly superior to MP3 in my experience.

 

265 kbps AAC sounds excellent to my ears. Better than MP3 at the same bitrate.

 

I get all my downloads from 7 Digital--the only things they don't seem to have selection-wise are Beatles and iTunes live EPS-plus you can re-download your music as many times as you want (I think Google Play limits your downloads)

They also offer many of the files in 320 kbps m4a files as well...

 

They've done well-constructed blind tests on this stuff, proper scientific experimentation, and AAC/m4a files beat out mp3 at EVERY shoot-out (at the same bitrate, with good encoders). It's just a superior format.

 

also if the album is "mastered for itunes" you'd certainly be better off with those AAC files vs. the joint-stereo lame encodes from amazon...world of difference.

 

AAC 256kps, as many have stated. You have to remember that AAC is not an Apple codec, it was designed by the same company that created the MP3 format and was actually designed to replace MP3's. Problem is that the MP3 codec is so heavily entrenched in hardware / software players that very few companies have actually migrated to it. There are also licensing costs that differ between the two of them, I believe.

But the differences in SQ are, imo, very minute. With that in mind, my own rule of thumb is that if the Amazon and iTunes versions cost the same, I'd buy it on iTunes. If the Amazon one is LESS money however, I'll still buy it on Amazon.

I also use iTunes Match as a way to "have my cake and eat it too". $25 a year -- however, if there are five Amazon albums I want at $5 a pop, but the iTunes version is $10 a pop, I can buy the Amazon ones and then Match them in iTunes and the service literally pays for itself for that year.

 

The difference was a lot more noticeable at 128, which Apple used to sell. 128 mp3s sound like rubbish as everyone knows, but a 128 AAC was more like a 192 mp3.

 

AAC > MP3

Even if you give MP3 a bit rate advantage. 256 AAC > 320 MP3

 

One of the things I like about using iTunes Match is that I after I download MP3s from Amazon, I can very quickly replace the MP3 files with the iTunes AAC equivalent. I can't say that I notice a dramatic difference, but the AAC versions do sound a bit closer to the 320 kbps MP3s I've got IMTH (in my trashed hearing)....

 

No question, AACs are better. It's not even a subjective thing - if you open a 320k MP3 track from Amazon, and the same track as a 256k AAC file from iTunes, and compare them in a program that displays the frequency spectrum. You can see the MP3 is cut off at the top, while the AAC has the full range. Listening to them, you can hear the mushy-sounding mp3 that lacks the crisp high frequencies, while the AAC sounds almost as good as a CD.

 

AAC works if you burn your files to CD-R, or intend to just use iTunes or an iPod. Me? My collection also includes mp3s. I prefer to not mix mp3 and AAC, and I do not use iTunes for file management or playing.

 

This is true. But AAC is not just an iTunes codec - I use AAC for my lossy standard now (I used to use MP3, and Vorbis for awhile). The new Sansa Clip Zip supports AAC (finally!), Cowon devices support it, Windows / OSX / Linux media players usually support it, my Android tablet supports it, Zune players support it, Audacity supports it (with a free plugin), Amazon Cloud Services support it without transcoding etc.

The only holdout for me is Google Play - it does not support AAC uploads without transcoding.

 

Going into spectrograms could lead to some heated discussions.

I personally agree that, to my ears, they is a very slight audible difference between an 256kps AAC and a 256kps MP3. But bump that up to a 320kps MP3 and I don't think I can really tell.

Amazon aside, LAME 3.99 can actually get information up to 24khz in spectrograms. But it's not as "organic", for the lack of a better word, versus ACC (Nero Encoder). Amazon itself is using LAME 3.97 as per a recent purchase from them, but not at the very highest setting.

 

I do everything as VBR AAC using XLD on a Mac. XLD is able to do true VBR, whereas the VBR in iTunes is more like a ABR.

Lots of acronyms, jeez!

Anyway, the AAC files sound better to me. I set it to be around a VBR 256 setting. they sound great, and the file sizes are nice and portable.

 

mp3 is a fairly old format now- I prefer lossless, but that is not to say that I consider a high quality mp3 unlistenable. It is also very mature. Improvements to the LAME encoder have been refined very impressively over the years.

AAC is a newer approach to solve the problem and has always been proposed as an improvement over mp3. I think that's true based from my personal listening experiences. 256kbps AAC is very, very good and is what I use for my lossy-based encodes.

If I went the mp3 route again I would use LAME to encode @ probably 256kbps.

 

I've yet to hear the difference between 256 AAC and the uncompressed source material.

 

But, I choose not to use AAC as my standard because my car player does not use it for one, and two, I like to keep it simple: FLAC and 320kbps mp3.

I prefer to buy 320 kbps from 7-digital if I can.

 

Not with 320kbps mp3. It does not matter if it cuts off at 20,000kHz.

 

I've actually run a couple of iTunes AAC files through a program that detects compression artifacts and they were detected as CDDA quality.

OOPSing the tracks don't even reveal the compression artifacts anymore!

 

So if my normal lossy choice for portable (non-critical) listening is CBR 320k mp3 (rather than 256), and I'm operating in the Apple ecosystem pretty much all the time, I really should be thinking about switching to 320 AAC, right?

Also, CBR or VBR? How much does that matter?

 

Personally, I use 256 kbps AAC VBR for most of my encoding. I find to be suitable for critical listening even. On iTunes, it is simply knows as 'iTunes Plus'.

VBR will save you space while giving no decrease in quality. Depending on the complexity of the music, the bit rate will fluctuate accordingly. CBR keeps the bit rate constant, and will even encode silence at a high bit rate. I see no reason to ever go with CBR over VBR.

 

I would consider 256kps VBR AAC's. You'll basically get the same SQ as 320kps CBR MP3, but a smaller file size (15 to 20%, possibly).

I'm using 256kps VBR AAC's for my CD rips, and 320kps VBR AAC's for my 48khz needle drops as it allows me to squeak out more data in the highest frequencies, at least with Nero Encoder.