Are you a fan of AAC (Advanced Audio Codec)?

I know a lot of people on this forum are audiophiles and stay true to lossless when listening to their music digitally. The purpose of AAC was to create higher quality lossy audiophiles at lower bitrates compared to MP3. From what I've read, the average listener using modest gear is unable to distinguish a difference between 128 kbps AAC and FLAC. People with more advanced gear and better trained ears, however, could.

A long time ago I had all of my files encoded at 128 kbps MP3, which was never a problem on cheap earbuds. However, when I finally upgraded to professional headphones (I use Audio Technica ATH-M50x) I could not believe how terrible it sounded. Squishy drums, washy cymbals, fuzzy bass and an overall sound with not much depth. This unfortunately made me have to go back and re encode ALL of my music, which was a pain! At least it let me rediscover some music I hadn't listened to in a while. I tried 192 kbps MP3, which was better but still a bit weak. Finally, I learned about AAC, and how well it performs (at the time, by the way, space was an issue). I played around and settled on AAC True VBR mode at quality level 90 (files between 150 and 230 kbps), which turned out to be a great compromise between space and sound. Using those headphones I couldn't hear a difference between FLAC and this AAC setting. So that's what I've settled on.

Since then I've gotten a bigger phone (256GB, before I had 64GB) and I listen to music on my phone at work (since I just sit around all day it's the best time for me, other than weekends.) I decided to try some more listening tests, this time using quality 110 (which made files around 255 kbps VBR) since most people say they can't hear a difference between that and FLAC no matter how hard they try, yet the quality 90 and 110 sounded the same to me. So I'll stick with 90. When I was performing my listening tests again I was starting to feel like I could finally hear a difference between those VBR files at quality 90 and FLAC, but man, I really had to struggle to see if I could pick out a difference, play the two back and forth several times, and even then what I was hearing was most likely in my head and whatever it was it was so minuscule it probably wasn't even there. If I did feel like I noticed a small difference, I could only notice it in the drums. If I did a blind test I wouldn't be able to determine the FLAC file and the lossy file.

So I guess I'm saying I'm happy I discovered AAC. Anybody else here use AAC? If so what settings do you use? For the record, I use XLD because it has more options.

 

No. It's not as bad as MP3, but it's still dreadful.

 

When I first started ripping my collection in 2005, I ripped at 256kbps MP3 because that was the resolution that I couldn't tell a difference between a CD using Grado SR80 headphones. I then switched to 320kbps AAC around 2008 for all newer purchases just because it made the most sense and didn't really take much more room. Since 2015, I rip ALAC lossless for recent purchases because space is cheap enough for me to afford it. I am not sure I will re-rip everything, but I do re-rip some artist catalogs when I am bored.

All has/is ripped using iTunes.

 

I have wondered, how many albums could one fit on a device with 256GB using 320 AAC? I was considering going up to 255 VBR but because I couldn't hear a difference between that and the settings I had been using for 3 years I stuck with VBR quality 90 because I figure I'm adding new music constantly and might as well leave some room, and also save some time. If I did decide to upgrade I would take my time with it though. When I had to replace my 128kbps MP3's I had to do it quick because there was no way I could listen to that.

 

I just checked my 320kbps (VBR) AAC files:

418 Abums
5,024 songs
49.8 GB

I hope that helps!

 

At least 2,500.

 

I have iTunes convert my uncompressed AIFF files to AAC when syncing to my iPhone

 

Thanks!

 

I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with AAC. Love it in general as I feel it's more bang for the byte buck, as far as sound quality (granted, LAME is pretty darn good as well).

Hate not for the format, but the overall hardware support. Obviously Apple devices and Windows / Android aren't a problem, but I mean support for other hardware, like the USB port in my car or some older DAP's out there. Seems like WMA actually got more market penetration versus AAC, for some reason.

 

I am a fan, for my ear the only transparent sounding lossy codec (at higher bitrates). And also unlike MP3, usable for broadcasting (does not suffer from cascading algorithms) in most broadcasting plants.

 

Yeah, I think it's a great codec; beats mp3s by a lightyear. I've downladed and converted to DVD several Youtube videos and gigs (not commercially available) and through my rig, the current 125 kbps is OK. Not great mind you, but OK. I miss the former 192 bitrate though.

 

I am one of those who can tell between FLAC and lossy AAC up to 450 VBR. I do not use AAC because it's not universal.

The other reason I don't like AAC lossy up to 450 is because the music sounds a bit trebly or brittle. Most people say they can't hear it, but I can. The bass is also a bit weak. I can even hear this on modest equipment and in the car. Sooner or later. someone is going to tell me that I can't really hear what I say I can hear. But, 260 kbps AAC files on iTunes is exactly why I don't use iTunes.

Since 256 AAC sounds unfavorable to me, and since it's not universal, I use 320 mp3. Oh, I can hear the difference between that and lossless, but at least I can play it anywhere.

Files sizes has never been an issue for me.

 

The universality of MP3 (especially in 2005) is why I initially ripped using that codec. The more I became an endemic species in the Apple ecosystem, the more desirable AAC became. For me and my gear, everything plays nice with everything else regardless of who makes it (yet no DSD streaming for me!), so AAC and ALAC are the way to go.

 

I do hope that some day Apple will release an ability to use SD cards for iPhones or phones with more gigs. Space isn't an issue for me on my computer, and I have lossless backups on a hard drive, but because 95% of my listening is portable it's really my only option. Fortunately I can't hear a difference, but if I had the option of playing my FLAC files without worrying about space I figure why wouldn't I? That way, even though I can't hear a difference now, I KNOW that I'm using the best available sound quality and would probably leave a little peace of mind.

 

Same here to my iPod Classic for in the car. When I get a car with no noise floor and an ICE worth a few grand, I may reconsider. Until then, it sounds fine.

 

AAC is a great codec. I have everything ripped to lossless ALAC, but I do have iTunes set to convert to 256aac on transfer. Also sounds great in the truck.

 

This is the problem with being tied into a specific environment. It's too exclusive.

 

Is it true that AAC was actually developed by Dolby Labs and then sold to Apple?

 

They never will, they want you tied into streaming Apple Music sooner, rather than later.

 

AAC is the iTunes default file format still, right? (My computer runs a 2002 version.) I can't tell the difference between that and regular CD. Since it saves space on my computer, I gotta say I'm a fan!

 

I do love a well-defined retort in a debate...

 

Sorry, I meant to quote EVH's post on Dolby Labs and you jumped me while editing to correct .

I knew it was a matter of time before it was alluded to that Apple was responsible for AAC. In fact Sony was promoting AAC long before AAPL was in the music biz (IIRC). It is a standard developed by lots of big hitters in the MPEG group, including Sony, Fraunhofer, and others. Apple went with it as it was the best thing going when they introduced iTunes. Better sound at the same bitrate than MP3. Pretty much the best option in the days when space was precious.

 

Damn, that's better

 

Me! *raises hand*

 

Oh yeah, that's right. But if Tool isn't going to be on Apple Music then no deal! They'll also need to have the Japanese black triangle of Dark Side Of The Moon.