Readers Respond: What's Better: AAC vs. MP3

The question of whether to use MP3 or AAC as an encoding format for music stirs strong passions on both sides of the debate. It's time to weigh in. Let us know which codec you prefer for your music and why. But remember, be polite!

MP3

PC vs Apple, PC wins due to open(ish) standard. AAC vs MP3, MP3 wins because of open(ish) standard. The argument is never as cut and dried as which is best. More like which is "good enough" and easiest to work with. MP3 wins, manufacturers support unencumbered standards that cost less or nothing. So it's never which is best, it's which will win. Depending on what side of the fence you are on, you will win with MP3 or queue up with the betamax lovers with nothing to play your music with...

—Guest rob

AAC Beats MP3's Ass

I've been a fan of the AAC format since I first heard of it. I record in AAC 128kbs. Better music quality, less disk usage, and overall better than MP3.

—Guest AAC LOVER

Eish

I record at 1500 kbps AAC. This is 2012 guys! How can you be so backward?

—Guest Eish

MP3. No question about it.

Although AAC is a newer codec, MP3 is far more compatible. At higher bitrates (MP3 max quality - 320kbps OR V-0), there's no difference between the MP3 file and the original CD. So, MP3 is the right choice.

—Guest Arcus Odissey

Hello. We are in 2012

Judge for yourself. 1. MP3 (LAME) is uses a slightly higher bitrate to encode for the same quality as AAC. 2. AAC was originally built upon the correction of problems brought about by MP3. 3. AAC has a unified tagging system without many versions like MP3 whose metadata easily messes up. 4. LAME only starts competing with iTunes AAC if it is in Joint Stereo. The AAC file will be in True Stereo. This implies that the MP3's stereo image is damaged. 5. MP3 has the widest support but software-wise this point is obsolete. Hardware support is now comparable. If AAC is not supported then WMA is. 6. MP3's maximum spec is 48 kHz, 2 Channel Audio whereas AAC's maximum spec is 96 kHz, 96 Channel Audio. This means lossy near-Studio Quality distribution is possible with AAC but impossible with MP3 and AAC has support for Surround Sound. 7.The only reason why AAC is often sidelined is the same reason why AVC is often sidelined. People cannot accept change. It is human nature.

—Guest Ronald

AAC vs. MP3 file sizes?

What's with the ~1MB file size difference? At the same bit rate, AAC and MP3 should be within a few bytes of each other (bitrate x # of seconds = file size). Looks like you had VBR enabled when you converted for the MP3 and not the AAC.

—Guest Chris CA

AAC is good, but still not worth it yet.

So many things still don't support AAC. I think if AAC was more universal, I probably would switch to it (actually, I like OGG even better, but that's very unlikely). I have always listened to (don't judge yet) MP3 at 96kbps 44.1k CBR (90% of the time it's LAME) and NEVER noticed any quality loss. I am not going deaf; I listen to my music on high-end speakers and I have a musically trained ear that has been active since I was 5. I am very picky about audio, yet I still say that 96kbps MP3 is the most compatible by far and really not a measurable amount lesser than AAC.

—Guest Erik

AAC

AAC is a newer, more sophisticated codec than MP3. Was developed by a joint venture between Nokia and Sony in the second half of the 90s... Codecs are made of "algorithms", well...all the informatics is made of them...They are the "core" of everything we do with a computer...AAC algorithms are much better than MP3's. No matter the bitrate. And the codec pushed up to its ultimate limits reached the (crazy for a lossy) 450 Kbps!! Being AAC as pointed out ALWAYS an ABR/VBR codec that means if you encode at 320Kbps the resulting file will have transients at 450 Kbps...This is provable with Foobar2000 for Windows, the player that gives you real time the information about bitrate...In Foobar I never saw an AAC staying at 320Kbps... There is always a Peak "above"... In very complex music it reached its limit very easily...I repeat: 450 Kbps!! So...we have a much better implemented codec that can reach 128Kbps MORE than ANY MP3 codec...Guess who is the winner?

—Guest Azure

Lengthy

I am currently (for the last 3 hours) converting my WAV and MPEGs to AAC format simply to import to my Ext HD and import onto my new HP. I hope the wait is worth it. So far so good.

—Guest JTribal

Thanx for doing it for me

I was planning to do a test of my own. But since I found your article, I changed my mind. I have everything I need. hehehe! Will now use MP3 in 256kbps to have more songs in my device and yet still enjoy the quality. Thank you so much!

—Guest Chardi

mp3 modifier

use mp3 modifie,r a free mp3 encoder with hardly any loss at even 64 kbps

—Guest guestshady

AAC better, MP3 enough

I use the lame mp3 encoder with the setting: -cbr 160 -m s -q 2 This produces maximum compatible soundfiles with enough of quality. For some songs/recordings I use: --alt-preset insane -m s -q 2 This produces the only perfect sound (320kbps), where I can hear no difference between CD/WAV and MP3. Every other codec or setting let me hear a very little difference - but a difference, even 256+ kbps AAC. 128kbps AAC is a little better that 128kbps MP3, - the same with 256kbps. But using MP3 with 160kbps and more (fixed or variable) with HQ-setting should be the ideal choice. Some people really think, AAC+ with 64kbps could replace AAC or MP3 with 128kbps. This is not true. 112 kbps is a lower border, a minimum bitrate for all encoders and codecs today (2011), if you want to have a real good sound-experience. I'm sad that very much projects (eg. DAB+) have chosen bitrates under 112 kbps. If the filesize with 160kbps MP3 is to big, you could chose AAC 128kbps. Just test it.

—Guest Matthias

AAC vs. MP3

Well, they seem to have their own pluses and minuses. AAC tends to have far less distortion at lower bitrates than mp3, incredibly low; in fact, it can still sound very clear at very low bitrates. There is one major drawback to ACC where mpeg1 layer-3 has an advantage, that is high fidelity. While speech does not seem to be darken as much music with a lot of highs such as the crash from the drums are faint or even non-existing. Mpeg2 part 7 (AAC) is a very Advance Audio Codec that is clear and very low in distortion even at bitrates down to 32kbps. But, if you are an audiophile and like to hear every “ping” and “shimmer” in your music, then Mpeg1 layer-3 in the container MP3 is best for you, at 320kbps of course.

—Guest lostcub

Very useful

very useful article for someone who's struggling, and so hard, to just try and listen to some good music with good sound without getting swamped with endless decision-making!

—Guest NishaB

I'm a bit f**ked in between ...

I wanted highest quality but at the same time 100% compatible with my car stereo witch supports only ipod MP @ 320kbps , I used 48khz sampling. I have some "Itunes store songs" but they are 256KBit rate an 44.1khz sampling rate ... an indication that this must be good. At the same time I wanted all my CD and singles finally digitized ... Oh boy ... 380CDs with an average of 16-20songs per album and after eliminating some doubles arriving at 45GB or an equivalent of 150MB/CD. Personally I would have gone for the Apple lossless conversion but fortunately I tested one CD before I did them all to test max compatibility, which finally determined my choice. I have an impressive installation at home and in my car, i can very clearly hear the difference between my CD or even my SACD compared to the MP3 320kb 48khz lower volume and average installation won't indeed reveal this tremendous difference. Everything has to be seen in the perspective of what you want.

—Guest FTK