Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Which AAC Bitrate (Read 8504 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Which AAC Bitrate

Hey everyone.  I'm about to get a 15gb ipod some I'm getting my music ready to add to it.  I'm trying to decide between 160 and 192kb AAC.  Can you guys give your opinion on which one I should use.  I'm a newb to all this stuff and I don't know if I could do the ABX listening thing pretty easy or not so I just decided to ask you guys what you thought about those two bitrates and which one.  Thanks.

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #1 –
According to the results of the recent AAC listening test:
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/aac128v2/results.html

Most people found iTunes @ 128kbps relatively transparent, so I'd say that 160 would be fine unless you're looking for the inner peace of overshooting.

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #2 –
I asked a similar question in another thread and most people thought between 160 and 192 was transparent with a couple thinking 224. I have been using 192 and have no complaints.

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #3 –
with the stock ipod headphones and seeing as how it'll most likely be used in noisy enviroments, i think you would be fine @ 192

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #4 –
Personally I think that 128kbps is excellent.  Unlike MP3 at 128kbps, AAC does not seem to have any bad artifacts for me so unless I'm ABXing against the original source audio I won't be able to tell that the AAC is not just like the original WAV file.  I think that a  bitrate between 128-192 would be best when using AAC.  For general music I think these bitrates would be fine for you or anybody and would give you a good size/quality ratio.  I now know why Apple picked 128kbps to use in their music store, excellent quality for the file size!  I can't stand 128kbps MP3s but AAC at 128kbps I can definitely stand.

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #5 –
I just can't decide between  160 and 192...  Some people say 160 some say 192.  I just don't want to rip it in something if I'm not going to notice a difference with a lower bit rate one.  I'm not good at telling the difference this is why I asked here.

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #6 –
you should definitely have joined rjamorims listening test, than you would have seen (or better heared) that 128 is definitely enough
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #7 –
If you have good high frequency hearing you may find iTunes 128kbps not up to par. It cuts off frequencies above 16khz. High frequency instruments like cymbals sound flat to me.

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #8 –
I've done it all at 128 AAC and have no problems with the iPod. Like it was mentioned before, artifacts were the main problem with 128 MP3, but I have not detected any with AAC. I'll put it to you this way, if your going to be using these files for going outside with the iPod, 192 will be overkill. Trust me, this is coming from a guy who use to encode some pretty big files. For just going out it really didn't make enough difference to justify the space.

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #9 –
Yeah I noticed that cymbols sound dull with 128kbps but to me it's not that annoying because I could only tell the difference when I ABXed it with the original WAV file.  The song I ABXed was Firehouse - Overnight Sensation.  The cymbols in the first 5 seconds are noticably duller than in the WAV but nothing annoying or that you would notice with casual listening.  This particular sample didn't become transparent to me until about 224kbps so even at 192kbps I could tell a difference.  I would say that in general 128kbps is great.  If you want more quality assurance then I'd use 160 or 192.

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #10 –
It all depends on your hearing, the headphones you will use, how good quality you want and your listening environment.

First, the standard Apple-supplied earbuds don't cut it at all. They are arguably some of the worst sounding earbuds I have listened to. If you use them, you will probably be able to get by with 160 or maybe even 128kbps. Mine went in the trash almost immediately after listening to them. I say almost immediately, because I bought my iPod while traveling, and I had nothing else with me to listen with. As soon as I got home, they were gone.

The bitrate you use will also to some extent depend on the music you want to listen to. More difficult to encode music will need a higher bitrate to prevent artifacts. Normal Top 40 and pop music can get by with a little less bitrate than for example metal or hard rock, because the music's less "complex" to the encoder.

Also, you have to consider the listening environment. If you will use your iPod outdoors, then ambient noise around you will "lessen" the needed bitrate due to higher level of background noise which may prevent you from hearing subtle differences of higher bitrates. Higher bitrates will give better reproduction of higher frequencies, and these are lost (not heard) if there is a lot of ambient noise.

I myself have settled on 192kbps with my iPod, which is used outdoors most of the time. My music is mostly hard rock, metal and blues, and this bitrate has worked for me so far. I use Sennheiser MX-300 earbuds, which sound far better than the iCrap that Apple gives you, and they're dirt cheap too. I have encoded about 200 CD's so far from my collection, and haven't had to re-encode at anything higher than 192 to get good quality. If I was listening in a more quiet environment, I might encode at 224kbps, since there is a 17.5khz lowpass when encoding at 192kbps, and I do still have good sensitivity to high frequencies.

I personally think that 160kbps is a good "compromise" of quality vs. filesize, but I wanted just a bit better transparency, and I could still ABX between 160 and 192 fairly easily. I haven't tried to ABX between 192 and 224, simply because I have decided that 192 is "good enough" in my listening environment with my music. I also have a bit more music in my CD collection than will fit on my 20GB iPod, so the filesize of 192 is a big advantage versus the probably miniscule quality improvement of 224.

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #11 –
I still can't choose...Some people are saying 128,160, and 192.  I'm going to be mostly be doing my listening on an Ipod or in my car stereo.  I don't want to go overboard with quality because I'm probably just be using Ipod in a noisy enviroment but I don't want a low quality sound.  Any help?

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #12 –
Quote
I still can't choose...Some people are saying 128,160, and 192.  I'm going to be mostly be doing my listening on an Ipod or in my car stereo.  I don't want to go overboard with quality because I'm probably just be using Ipod in a noisy enviroment but I don't want a low quality sound.  Any help?

choose 128 then.

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #13 –
Quote
I still can't choose...Some people are saying 128,160, and 192.  I'm going to be mostly be doing my listening on an Ipod or in my car stereo.  I don't want to go overboard with quality because I'm probably just be using Ipod in a noisy enviroment but I don't want a low quality sound.  Any help?

take just a few representative sample songs of your music genre(s) of choice, encode the same files in both bitrates, then listen to them on the perspective listening environments?

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #14 –
Well, 128 seems to be good enough for most situations, but I would personally go with 192 as cbope has.  It's not horribly huge, and gives quality assurance no matter your listening situation.

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #15 –
I'm using around 128kbits with my ipod to.. no problems. nor audible artifacts

You shouldn't consider going above 160kbits.

also remember that higj bitrates = more disk reading = more power consumation = less battery time

high bitrates = more space = less effetkive buffusage = less skip protection and more disk reading
Sven Bent - Denmark

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #16 –
Are samples that are difficult for MP3 to encode transperantly also difficult for AAC? For example, I have a few LAME 3.90.3 -aps files that are in the mid 260 kbps. Is this a good guide to know that these will be the hardest samples for AAC to encode and sound transperant? Or does AAC have other sorts of samples that are difficult?

I am considering re-ripping my collection to AAC as MP4A, ready to buy a new iPod ;-D  I have about 400 CDs, so this isn't something I want to do often. Currently I have about 300 of my CDs on my PC as 3.90.3 -aps. They seem to average around 190 - 210. I am hoping that an AAC encoder could create files with equivelent transperancy, but around 160 - 180. Is it likely that some time in the future highly tuned AAC encoders will feature this degree of efficientcy? Or is that theoretically impossible? When I say AAC I mean AAC-LC.

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #17 –
Quote
You shouldn't consider going above 160kbits.

Why shouldn't I, or anyone else, go above 160kbps? Are we breaking some law I wasn't aware of?

Please, no nonsense posts like this. It just confuses people that are looking for facts. If I can ABX between 160 and 192, and I choose to have higher fidelity in my music, why can't I go above 160? 160 isn't enough for me on the music I listen to. Everyone must listen to the various bitrates with their own music and make a decision that fits their needs of quality vs. size. 128 produces very noticeable artifacts with the music I tested it on, and 160 was still not enough with some music.

This reminds me of the days when everyone said 128kbps CBR MP3's were CD quality, pure BS, nothing else.

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #18 –
Quote
Are samples that are difficult for MP3 to encode transperantly also difficult for AAC? For example, I have a few LAME 3.90.3 -aps files that are in the mid 260 kbps. Is this a good guide to know that these will be the hardest samples for AAC to encode and sound transperant? Or does AAC have other sorts of samples that are difficult?

Certainly, there are some tracks that produce artifacts in one codec but not in others, but generally a hard to encode track is just that. I also had a lot of music ripped in LAME 3.90.3 APS when I bought my iPod. I now have a lot of AAC-LC 192kbps encoded by iTunes, if that answers your question

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #19 –
Quote
Why shouldn't I, or anyone else, go above 160kbps? Are we breaking some law I wasn't aware of?

Must you insist on quoting out of context? Many previous posters have provided the same reasons OVER and OVER again to make sure people get it, and obviously you still don't.

If you can ABX 160 kbps, fine, go ahead and do 192 kbps and 224 kbps. The fact that the thread-starter asked for recommendations shows that by most odds he will be hard-pressed to hear any difference with the (1) stock iPod earbuds, (2) noisy outdoor environment, (3) lack of artifact training, and these reasons have been repeated umpteen times.

Edit: I use an iMP-500, Senn PX 200 on the bus and train, and I still find 128 kbps mp3 files fine for portable use. To dispel any doubts about my hearing, I do not listen to rock and metal, and definitely not at ear-splitting levels.

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #20 –
Sometimes I see these threads and I just have to flat out say this: Choose what sounds *best* to you.  No one else's opinion(s) matters here.  The only person listening to the music is YOU unless you're encoding for the masses (and you're not doing that, right?).



Do some testing on your own, choose some of the test samples you can find in the HA forums here or at ff123's site (do a search for posts with his nickname, there are hundreds).  I'm sure you'll notice some kinds of differences between encoders and possibly even bitrates, but, it always comes back to the same thing:

CHOOSE WHAT SOUNDS BEST TO YOU and fits your criteria, such as filesize (a major concern for most people with portable audio devices).  All that stuff is totally irrelevant if, after all this time and trouble, you still can't figure out what sounds best to you. 

Same way most people buy audio components backwards: If the point of an audio system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possibly, then obviously the speakers have to be the most important aspect.  No matter how much money you spend on God-knows-what hardware, if that source material isn't converted to airwaves to hit your eardrum by the best speakers you can find (the ones that sound *best* to you; remember, that's all that really matters), then it's wasted.  It would be like playing a CD through a tin-can phone over a piece of string.

I only have 4GB on my iPod mini, that wasn't the reason I bought it.  I bought it: a) It's cool as hell; b) It's built like a tank; c) It has fair battery life and I can charge it in almost any USB port I can plug into; d) It's still just as cool now as it was when I bought it; e) It is LOUD on it's own, no external amp is really required unless you're VERY serious about your music and hardware (and if you're that serious you should just stick with the original source material); f) It plays AAC and MP3 files; g) It's a 4GB hard drive if I choose to use it as such; and various other reasons.

You'll notice in those reasons for buying it I didn't mention the 4GB size on the drive.  It's irrelevant to me.  Again, it always ALWAYS comes down to personal preference.  I think carrying around 1,000 songs in my pocket is damned plenty, some people want more, and that's fine.  But it's not what I want.  Nor is it probably what you want.  You could almost say the iPod mini is: "The iPod... for the rest of us... that don't need the cost or storage of the regular iPod"

Our opinions may or may not sway a person one way or the other and again, that's fine.  Just listen to the stuff you're encoding and make decisions for yourself.  There's nothing wrong with making an informed opinion, i.e. which one makes smaller files, which one has higher bitrates... all this means nothing in the end.  The only thing that matters is HOW IT SOUNDS TO YOU.

This audio encoding "thing" has gone way beyond what it should be: A way of fitting more music onto portable players with respectable quality as compared to the original CD digital audio data.  I've spent so much time over the past 8 years or so encoding, testing, re-encoding, reripping, etc etc ad nauseum.  I reached a conclusion when I bought the iPod mini (actually I came to this conclusion quite some time ago, but implemented it with the purchase of the mini) that: I just don't care anymore.  I rip some music with iTunes (great app once you get to know it, yes it has quirks but what do you expect from an Apple program ported to Windows to increase sales of iPods) to AAC at 192Kbps, load up the mini and go.  That's it.  I'm sick to death of worrying about, "Oh, will other people call me a lamer/idiot/moron/dumbass/ignorant/uninformed/blahblahblah person because I chose to use AAC at 192Kbps (or whatever bitrate you've chosen)."  I could care far less than I do now once I made that decision.  They're my ears, they're my CDs, it's my PC, it's my iPod mini.  To hell with what others think, this is *good enough* for me.

When you're spending considerably more time concerned about what the music will sound like instead of being concerned about what it does sound like, that's when you've crossed the line.  For myself, I chose to step back over and become a listener once again.  Good luck in your decision.

Ok, I'm done.   

br0adband

ps
I apologize for that going on as much as it did, but sometimes I just gotta rant. 
The difference between genius and stupidity?

Genius has limits.

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #21 –
werd.  You only are getting a 15gb... some say 128, some say 192, some say 160.... I say just average those and cut your losses therefore going with 160. 

If you really wanted to stick with high audio quality you'd fork out the extra 100 or so bux, get the 40gb and convert everything at 192kbs+.  I'd personally go for 160kbs AAC's, that's what I'm primarily using now and I dont notice any degredation in audio quality (being in a library to being on a noisey street corner).  You'd save some cash and you'd have the transparency you desire.

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #22 –
Quote
Sometimes I see these threads and I just have to flat out say this: Choose what sounds *best* to you.  No one else's opinion(s) matters here.  The only person listening to the music is YOU unless you're encoding for the masses (and you're not doing that, right?).

A fear for those of us who aren't well trained in listening for artifacts, etc. is that while we aren't able to ABX two bit rates today, we'll get more sophisticated in the future, and then will wish we had used a higher bit rate. 

Knowing that more experienced listeners can't abx 160 v 192 or 192 v 250 or whatever gives some comfort that we won't do a lot of work ripping and then later want to re-rip at another bit rate.

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #23 –
Quote
Knowing that more experienced listeners can't abx 160 v 192 or 192 v 250 or whatever gives some comfort that we won't do a lot of work ripping and then later want to re-rip at another bit rate.


So true.

Quote
I could care far less than I do now once I made that decision. They're my ears, they're my CDs, it's my PC, it's my iPod mini. To hell with what others think, this is *good enough* for me.


True as well.

2 different arguments - both valid.

So far I have been very happy with 192 AAC. And I have been listening more and encoding less. 

Which AAC Bitrate

Reply #24 –
Quote
So far I have been very happy with 192 AAC. And I have been listening more and encoding less. 

Congrats, welcome to the other side of the line.

 

br0adband
The difference between genius and stupidity?

Genius has limits.