I'm sure this is probably a tired topic amongst the audiophile crowd (if they ever use lossy, anyways) and has probably been discussed here already but I couldn't find a thread on it.

I almost exclusively listen to my music in lossy format. I would prefer using lossless but the devices I use (iPod, playstation) either don't support the format or memory space plays a factor. Plus, I never seem to use my audiophile headphones anymore and I hook up my iPod to my stereo using an analog cord (it's an old stereo) so lossless would be wasted on it regardless.

So, my next best option is the convert to the best lossy format possible. Currently (and ever since I put in some research on the subject) I use MP3 V-0 from a lossless source (when possible). However, I'd just like to make sure that that is the best lossy format. I've heard talk that AAC is actual superior, but I'm not an audio expert (I still can't figure out how to tell is a lossless file actually is truly lossless).

I don't know if there is a comparable V-0 setting with AAC, but my audio converter only supports 192, 256 & 320 presets. Are any of those setting better than MP3 V-0? Do they take up more MBs?

I don't know much about AAC myself so I can't really weigh in on if it truly is better (though like you, I've heard it is), but given that I've heard OGG being superior to MP3 as well, those should probably be your contenders (if your devices support it). From a bitrate standpoint, 320 would be better than V-0 but I've never heard anyone say they could hear a quality difference between them. And from a filesize standpoint, V-0 would obviously be the better contender.

320 is better than V-0, but to me the file size tradeoff isn't worth the minimal difference in quality. And I'm not sure if iTunes supports OGG yet. The last time I checked (sometime last year), it didn't. Don't know much about the format, either, since my devices don't support it.

320 is better than V-0

Says who? There's no audible difference.

I don't know much about AAC, but iTunes AAC files are essentially lossless. I don't know whether all AAC files are that well-designed, or if Apple uses a variant that has superb sound quality.

iTunes doesn't do OGG, and probably never will.

long story short: aac IS the better codec!

mp3 at the highest quality settings is about the same as aac at 256kbps vbr (that's what apple uses on their store).

anyone who transcodes aac to mp3 is simply said an idiot. you gain nothing! you actually lose quality and you increase filesize.

as for .ogg or even .flac playback in itunes: it will never happen. apple has it's own lossless codec. on top they wont go into any possible trouble with right-owners.
you want lossless in itunes? transcode to alac and be happy.

256 AAC VBR is better than MP3 320 CBR...

FLAC MASTER RACE!!!

Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did.

So what I'm understanding is that when I convert my lossless files to lossy I should use AAC. Is 320 better than 256? My audio converter has no CBR/VBR settings. Should I stick with MP3 then or is its converting power up to snuff?


Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did.

I've never heard that lossy files actually degrade on a hard drive. I certainly haven't experienced anything like that, as far as I'm aware. Is the same true for other types of files?

I've never heard that lossy files actually degrade on a hard drive. I certainly haven't experienced anything like that, as far as I'm aware. Is the same true for other types of files?

Any file type that's affected by rotational velocidensity.

So what I'm understanding is that when I convert my lossless files to lossy I should use AAC. Is 320 better than 256? My audio converter has no CBR/VBR settings. Should I stick with MP3 then or is its converting power up to snuff?



I've never heard that lossy files actually degrade on a hard drive. I certainly haven't experienced anything like that, as far as I'm aware. Is the same true for other types of files?

You can read about it here Why FLAC is better. (http://www.head-fi.org/t/451369/why-flac-is-better)

You can read about it here Why FLAC is better. (http://www.head-fi.org/t/451369/why-flac-is-better)

Whoa, what the hell! I'm suing that guy.

Says who? There's no audible difference.

It's common sense.. v0 is like 256 variable bitrate, 320 is constant. Why wouldn't the 320 be better?

Also AAC is lossy, ALAC is lossless.

iTunes AAC M4A > MP3. It also depends if the AAC is directly from the iTunes store (256kbps VBR) or not (sometimes you find 320kbps AAC files which are Nero transcodes, like on ru-tracker).

I always prefer digital versions as opposed to rips, due to the simple fact that the person who rips an MP3 version from the original CD may not always be trustworthy/accurate/faultless.

It's common sense.. v0 is like 256 variable bitrate, 320 is constant. Why wouldn't the 320 be better?

Also AAC is lossy, ALAC is lossless.

I don't think I've seen a V0 even get above 224

I don't think I've seen a V0 even get above 224

I have quite a few ranging from 250-300 in my library. It all depends on the source and how dense it is. My Radiohead albums are all around 300.

It's common sense.. v0 is like 256 variable bitrate, 320 is constant. Why wouldn't the 320 be better?

V-0 can have a bitrate of 320 when it needs to.

320 may, technically, have slightly higher audio quality, but that's nitpicking. It's probably impossible to tell the difference between V-0 and 320k.

Hi again.

LAME MP3 has updated so even in v0 there is no cut off like old days.
V0 and 320 dont really hear any difference.
320 takes up empty space just because.
V0 takes up what it needs to.

AAC takes up what it needs to always. No real use to have constant in AAC since it is named "Advanced".

I hear no reason to use constant when I find nothing that cant play variable.

Both constant and variable dont cut off anymore. Unless you tell it to.

I want to only say that it would depend on source, as said already.
Some work better with constant, some work better with variable.

I would prefer AAC. Or v0. No need to keep constant bitrate (variable quality) when you can have constant quality (variable bitrate).
Please read here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_bitrate#Advantages_and_disadvantages_of_V BR

Constant is good for streaming. If you stream. If you know you *must* stream. If you *have* to stream.
Not if you *might* stream.

Either way, constant or variable, you make sacrifices.
Make the least sacrifices so you dont have to go do anything twice.

bye again.