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!Weigh In
320kbps MP3 and AAC vs FLAC
- SORRY —Guest 86123maxxi, I love for being an audiophile ... but I'm not. I have a US$25 in-earphone ... I hear the difference between 320 kbps MP3 or ACC vs FLAC ... my ears is a gift from God, maybe. But I hear the difference. Regarding to MP3 and AAC and FLAC, please make it straight, both MP3 and AAC is a LOSSY ... so, it's not wise for making a comparison to LOSSLESS. For LOSSY is a LOSSY and it's not a RIVAL for LOSSLESS. But if I required to answer, to me at least (based from my experience off course): FLAC is much more better than 320kbps LOSSY. While AAC is better than MP3 in the same bitrate (all bitrate).
- —Guest czgirb
- Like Rani, also a musician. Any stereo or recorded music is a lie compared to what any instrument sounds like live with an actual person playing it. This should be the starting concept for any audiophile per se. This means that any equipment whether portable or expensive hifi colors the audio according to its own capabilities. Nothing in all of personal audio is therefore authentic. However, the closest you can come to natural sound is through analog materials. It is because the physical properties of the equipment most naturally reflect what real music sounds like. Playing an acoustic guitar in my room to myself can never be replicated exactly as it sounds in a recording. In digital music I have found that lossless formats are very important because they mimic better the spaciousness of natural music. Compressed music is bad from an audiophile standpoint if you like. Not because of what you are hearing or not, but because the compression alters the vibrations or sensations.
- —Guest Dave
256kbps+ MP3/AAC equivalent to lossless
- Being an audiophile myself, I have tested the various codecs, both lossy codecs like MP3 and AAC and lossless codecs like FLAC or WAV. Generally, if you encode your music at above 256kbps in either MP3 or AAC format, the result is indistinguishable from WAV or FLAC with most headphones and speaker systems. Unless you have a 5-digit speaker system I doubt that you would even be able to pickup the difference between a 320k MP3 file and a FLAC file. And mind you, I tested these formats on neutral sounding headphones i.e Sony MDR-V6 and the Sennheiser HD 600.
- —Guest 86123maxxi
MP3 For Me
- I'm staying with MP3 for now, compatibility wise. I have good hearing and have always noticed compression artifacts in 128kbps & in some 160kbps MP3s. 192kbps has always been my choice for best quality/small file size. I haven't noticed any difference with bit-rates higher than 192kbps, however, I used to rip my music with Windows Media Player but found that the iTunes encoder produces cleaner, crisper MP3s at the same bit-rate. After some testing, I found that AAC is better with bit-rates under 160kbps. You don't get the echo/ringing artifacts from high frequencies like you do with MP3. If quality is important but space is an issue, the default iTunes 128kbps AAC setting should be fine.
- —Guest Brian
- ACC and MP3 are lossy file formats, which means that they remove bits not heard by the human ear, and they also remove bits for tones that are so similar that the human ear cannot distinguish them if both played at same time. The key issue with your test, is that you took an ACC file and converted it to MP3. They both have different algorithms for how they compress and remove bits of the audio track, so when you convert one lossey file to another you are going to end up with a lower quality file. When you convert, it needs to be from a lossless format like the original CD, FLAC, or some other format that does not remove sound bits from the file. If you are purchasing music, I'd recommend going with MP3 because it is the universal format that works on everything. Nothing wrong with AAC format, if you plan to always use an Apple audio player. So to do a fair test, you need to compare an audio track extracted and converted to each format from the same source material. [AAC is also a universal format, not a proprietary Apple format, and it is supported widely. - Sam]
- —Guest KungfuMonkey
For Car : MP3 @ 320 KBPS
- For listening to music in my car, I always use MP3 that is at 320 KBPS. The quality is pretty decent for car, and for the space I don't worry because I have a 4 GB USB stick.
- —Guest Dan
None of them is good enough
- Any lossy compressed audio format is inferior to lossless audio formats WAVE or AIFF. For easy music, pop, rock, etc. it doesn't matter, but for concert music it makes a difference. Listen to the same piece of music played on the harpsichord once in WAVE or AIFF format, then in MP3 or AAC format, and you'll hear the difference. But nothing, no vinyl, digital music comes close to listening to live music in a concert hall. Even in the case of a stereo equipment worth over a hundred thousand dollars!
- —Guest George
- Vinyl is inferior to digital. It is the absolute truth.
- —Guest Anon
AAC to MP3
- Thanks! This was very helpful ;-) The instructions were very simple to follow, unlike other postings I have seen.
- —Guest Christina
FLAC for archive, AAC/MP3 for portable
- It depends. For me, I have FLAC archives of my CD collection that I have trans-coded MP3 AND AAC versions of. I use the AAC versions encoded @Q6 Quality Mode in iTunes for my iPod/iPad, I use the MP3 versions, encoded in V0 setting (320Kbps quality but with less file size) for Google Play Music streaming and for CD's in the car or for my family's MP3 players, et al. I find AAC to have punchier bass and at Q6 setting VBR, it gives a nice filesize with out affecting the listening on the equipment I am using. I find MP3 to be flatter, but that again depends on the equipment I am using to play back the files. FLAC is best for archive on the NAS and for keeping to encode to any future formats that come along so I have a copy ready to trans-code and lose no quality like I would if I archived in a lossy format.
- —Guest Dom
No to AAC, yes to MP3!
- Have you ever tried both AAC and MP3? Today I ripped a Korn album using both formats, and AAC used 154 MB of my HDD, MP3 140 MB. So it's a lie AAC uses less space!
- —Guest Kaspars
Both equally bad
- Agree with audiophile. However, generally, digital music just sucks. I tolerate it for convenience, but even with the pops, hiss, and rumble, nothing beats vinyl and analog. There's just a depth and richness there that doesn't exist anywhere else, and there seems to be no way to faithfully convert sine wave to on/off.
- —Guest D.A.
- Only plebeians use lossy encoding. Patricians use maximum CD-quality lossless encoding, like FLAC. Moreover, FLAC supports gapless playback and is immune to the devastating effects of the little-known phenomena of rotational velocidensity. You might not know, but when stored on a hard drive, lossy formats like MP3 or AAC can lose bits due to the rotation of the hard drive. This is amplified on faster HDDs, and slightly less severe on SSDs, although the effect is still present. What happens is that the file loses bits at some 5-6% of the overall bitrate per year. This causes any archived music to sound absolutely terrible. The rotational XY constant multiplied by the velocity over the density of rotational speed times the vector of the location of the file can give you a good idea of how many bits are lost for your hard drive. I hope you all learn to use superior lossless and FREEDOM respecting codecs like FLAC. MP3 is unfree, which means it probably has a virus, while FLAC is free. [Readers - I don't see much empirical support for the rotational velocidensity notion in Google. If anyone can point to scientific proof of this, I'd be interested in seeing it. In the absence of that, I'd look skeptically on that idea. -Sam]
- —Guest Freedom Machine
The difference is hardly noticeable.
- In fact, there is hardly any difference between the two unless the bit rate goes down to 192 kbps or lower. I'd use WAV, the audio format used on CDs. The WAV format is completely lossless.
- —Guest Guest1
AAC, with minute differences
- According to Wikipedia @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding, AAC was supposed to be the successor of MP3. It achieves better quality with a similar bit rate. However, if the quality is already 320 kbps, then it's hard to tell the difference. My challenge: try a sound test. Encode the same audio twice, once in MP3 and once in AAC. Play each one and see if you can tell the difference. If you don't want to lose ANY quality, try WAV, FLAC, or PCM format. (That's what I use.)
- —Guest Guest