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: at 192Kbps is m4a or mp3 better for cd archival? (Read 5043 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

at 192Kbps is m4a or mp3 better for cd archival?

Hi,
I want to archive my cds to dvd without uing too much space.
That's why I want to encode at 192Kbps.
Will mp3 or aac give me better results at this rate?
thnx,
geo

at 192Kbps is m4a or mp3 better for cd archival?

Reply #1 –
Would this help?

at 192Kbps is m4a or mp3 better for cd archival?

Reply #2 –
The general line here seems to be that AAC has more potential as a format (especially at lower bitrates), but that right now LAME at high bitrates is about as good as AAC. And since mp3 is compatible with everything and AAC is not, go with mp3. You should use LAME --preset standard instead of 192 kbps, though - they'll come out about the same average bitrate, but significantly better quality. Unless you're using a new iPod, which apparently doesn't handle vbr well.
God kills a kitten every time you encode with CBR 320

at 192Kbps is m4a or mp3 better for cd archival?

Reply #3 –
Quote
Would this help?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327514"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Only if he plans to use the public Nero encoder for classical music.

I'd go with 192kbps VBR AAC. Both are transparent on most music, but my experience is that AAC handles high frequencies better and there's less pre-echo. With AAC there's less problem samples and certainly no bitrate bloat. It's also a lot faster to encode.

Much equipment is AAC compatible these days also, so that argument is becoming less and less valid.

at 192Kbps is m4a or mp3 better for cd archival?

Reply #4 –
How many CDs are we talking about?

I have backed up about 250 CDs to 21 DVDs using FLAC. It doesn't really take that much space.

Using FLAC I can transcode later to whatever lossy format suits me at any given time. It should be an overnight job on a modern computer.
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com

at 192Kbps is m4a or mp3 better for cd archival?

Reply #5 –
Exactly - and a 25-pack of quality DVD+R (e.g. Verbatim) cost about the same as one standard priced music CD here. I use wavpack, though.  In addition, I backup as lame --pfs mp3-images on DVDs. 3 DVDs stores about 200 images, and I can play them on my standalone DVD player. 

at 192Kbps is m4a or mp3 better for cd archival?

Reply #6 –
What are pfs-images?  I can't get my DVD player to read mp3s on mine, will using a 'pfs-image' work? 

at 192Kbps is m4a or mp3 better for cd archival?

Reply #7 –
Quote
What are pfs-images?  I can't get my DVD player to read mp3s on mine, will using a 'pfs-image' work? 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327562"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


--pfs refers to the command line used on the lame encoder to trigger the  "Preset Fast standard".

As for image, I guess he means a "CD rip"

at 192Kbps is m4a or mp3 better for cd archival?

Reply #8 –
Yes, the option --pfs doesn't exists - it's just a shortcut for --preset fast standard. With image I mean a CD rip of a complete CD to one mp3 file (image) + a cuesheet file (CD description).  Most DVD players can play mp3 files on CD-R media, but unfortunately, surprisingly few can play mp3's burned on DVD media.