256 aac vs mp3 - which sounds better

This is all true, but only up to a certain bit threshold. And that is highly dependent on the encoder used. If you matched iTunes 1.0 (from 10 or so years ago) @ 128 kbps against LAME 3.99 (the current version) @128 kbps, LAME's encodes would be audibly better because its tuning and bit allocation algorithms are the result of years of sophisticated modifications and testing, even though iTunes 1.0 uses the AAC codec. If you matched iTunes 11 (current version) @ 256 kbps VBR versus LAME 3.99 @ -v 0 (results are usually in the 220 to 280 bit range) they are perceptually indistinguishable and no dbx test has yet proven otherwise.

 

Ah, good to know. Thank you for the clarification.

 

Some good points, especially about Nero. I did some tests awhile back and this is generally what I found:

Nero 1.5.4 at ~66 quality is comparable to LAME V0. File size are almost the same (neglible difference) and spectrograms are also very close. From a non-audio perspective they are very close -- audio wise I hadn't done too many tests. For MFiT at 320kps, there is an increase in file size by about 15%, which makes sense since it's VBR upwards towards 350kps or so versus ~280kps for Nero @66 / LAME V0, but there is also more information via the spectrograms as well - audio side I would be hard pressed to tell a difference as well but I went with the MFiT droplet solution as I think they can be minute differences + the increase in storage space is pretty small versus something like FLAC / ALAC where file sizes are about 4x larger per track. And with 24/96 sources it can actually be more like upwards to 10x larger per track for lossless.

Again this was all 48khz needledrop downsampling tests on my part. Once you get to LAME V0 it gets really tough to tell some of these codecs apart.

 

Depends on the bitrate. Lossless is generally somewhere around 700kbps; I would expect even the highest lossy compressed file would be less than half that. So Lossless files are compressed at about 2:1 (but not quite). I go with roughly 4:1 on my lossy files when I can (320kbps).

 

Thank you for the reply! I appreciate the info. I'm going to copy over my lossless files to lossy for my wife who's happy with mp3's but I thought I might do it in AAC. I was trying to figure out how big of a external hard drive to buy her.

 

I thought AAC had better compression as well? Anyway, I'm perfectly happy with 256 AAC.

 

boy I thought I would never see a thread like this here ever!!! I flip between 256 AAC and 288 AAC AND 320 ACC I will never go done below that ever again!

 

Yes. The Fraunhofer Institute invented both MP3 (1992) and AAC (1997):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_codecs

You should go over to the Hydrogen Audio Forums sometime. They have huge, knock-down / drag-out fights over audio codec comparisons. The gist of their conversations over the past 10 years is: "once you get past 192kbps, there's almost no difference between codecs. The biggest differences are heard at very low bitrates."

I try to stick with 320kbps AAC just because I feel like it stomps the least on the signal I'm trying to listen to, so it's the best possible compromise. I don't pretend I could hear the difference between that and 320K, 256K, and so on. I can say it's very, very hard to hear the difference between 320kbps and Lossless.

 

Really interesting discussion. Count me in the camp who initially heard MP3 files at 128K and thought they sounded like garbage. I couldn't believe people were excited about portable digital players and couldn't understand the iPod fad at all. In fact, I was very late to get one of those (2009) and only after hearing 256 AAC and being surprised how much better they sounded.

I occasionally buy files from iTunes, Amazon, 7 Digital and Beatport and when I rip my cds I use 320 AAC.

 

CBR encoding is still recommended for compatibility reasons. Some players don't play nice with VBR MP3 encoding.

 

In 10+ years, I've yet to meet a hardware or software player that doesn't play nice with VBR.

 

My friend swears VBR doesn't work with his Pioneer car stereo well.

 

If memory serves, and this is going WAY back, I had a portable MP3 optical player (remember those?) that was very finicky with MP3 -- I think it didn't like VBR, only CBR. But that was back around 2000 or so.

But I can't think of one device I personally own that has a problem with MP3 VBR - granted I don't really use the format anymore but my DAP's and even my car stereo with MP3 optical disc compatibility all work fine with VBR.

 

The dbpoweramp converter uses the Nero AAC encoder, (though it must be installed separately). And it will encode VBR up to -q 1. Which yields most file bitrates of between the 400-450 kbps. range
And as long as you don't need, or don't use the LAME encoder the dbpoweramp converter is free.

 

My Sony in dash player plays MP3 but at CBR only.

 

Just bumping this to see if any new info has been discovered since last year.

 

I used to make 300kbps AAC files which sounded great. Happy medium between 256 and 320, both for space and best audio quality. Apparently the Nero encoder is no longer in production though, so the FDK is used now which only goes 256 to 320 AAC (or higher if you want).

 

On a purely technical level, AAC at 256 kbps is better than MP3 at any bit rate. It's just a better format. There is science behind this. On a practical level, it can be hard to tell a clear difference between the two by the time you get to 256 kbps because while inferior, MP3 still sounds very good at that level and I personally can't tell a difference. I use AAC when I can on principle though. You have probably found your answer by now, but listen and compare for yourself if you haven't. Something that may be helpful, I notice that there is a quicker cut off for bass (in certain songs that use heavy bass frequencies) in MP3, making it weaker than in AAC or lossless (though it's subtle).

 

On another note, AAC masks the artefacts of clipping (something common in modern music) really well. MP3 doesn't at all even at 320 which is why most audiophiles think MP3 is a horrible format. Just some food for thought (though you may not be able to hear the artefacts unless you isolate the side channels in songs that are brickwalled or full of clipping)

 

Buy from 7-digital if you are set on buying lossy downloads. They have 320 kbps in many cases, except with Warner and some Universal titles.

I, and many of us, can hear that 256 AAC is a bit trebly and brittle. I don't like it.

 

Umm......that avatar????? Is this is a joke????

 

Could it be that when people participate in these shootouts, usually DBT ones, usually pick the ones that have a slightly tipped-up treble? I think most people do tend to pick the one with more treble, and that is why the 256 AAC tests so well. That does not make it superior.

When I compare formats, and/or bit-rates, I listen to soundstage and width, as well as what's going on in the frequencies.

 

I think it's pretty funny. Oh, it's not totally true, but it may as well be.

 

I meant the people in it, not the title.

 

I totally dismiss whatever those guys have to say. I don't think they know how to use their ears.