Difference MP3 and AAC

geranimo:// · 10-11-2004, 04:18 PM

Anyone knows what the difference really is, and wich one do you advice me to rip my music to, knowing I use iTunes and iPod..

Thnx

TheChef · 10-11-2004, 06:32 PM

Mp3 files are a lot bigger than AAC files (I believe almost 90% comparing 192kbps to 160kbps). But the quality might suffer a little, if you really care.

Lorand · 10-11-2004, 07:21 PM

The AAC format was designed to replace MP3 and achieve the same quality at lower bitrates (but that was not entirely a success)...

geranimo:// · 10-11-2004, 07:27 PM

So you suggest me to take.......?

Lorand · 10-11-2004, 07:30 PM

mp3

geranimo:// · 10-11-2004, 07:33 PM

iight, but I've already ripped a part of my MP3 collection into AAC, will i lose quality if i rip it back to mp3?

Lorand · 10-11-2004, 07:44 PM

Yes, but you have already losed quality ripping from mp3 to aac.
So in that case stay with the aac.

geranimo:// · 10-11-2004, 08:05 PM

Iight, I will, thnx for the advice

**Praetor** · 10-12-2004, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Advanced Audio Coding The follow-up codec to MPeG1 Layer3 (MP3). AAC was developed (just like MP3) by the "Fraunhofer Institut für integrierte Schaltungen". AAC sounds better than MP3 - 96kbps compression are sufficient for good sound quality. Moreover AAC is secure - that is why Liquid Audio makes use of AAC.

Lorand · 10-12-2004, 08:52 PM

Quote:

96kbps compression are sufficient for good sound quality.

Define "good"...

Besides, mp3 is more portable (almost all players would recognize it).

10-11-2004, 04:18 PM	#1 (permalink)
geranimo:// Gold Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Age: 20 Posts: 345	Difference MP3 and AAC Anyone knows what the difference really is, and wich one do you advice me to rip my music to, knowing I use iTunes and iPod.. Thnx

10-11-2004, 06:32 PM	#2 (permalink)
TheChef Diamond Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: New York Age: 17 Posts: 1,383	Mp3 files are a lot bigger than AAC files (I believe almost 90% comparing 192kbps to 160kbps). But the quality might suffer a little, if you really care. __________________ Athlon 64 3000+ Venice -- MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum Asus nVidia GeForce 6600 -- Corsair ValueSelect 1024mb Seagate 120GB Barracuda -- Xoxide X-Clear Case FOR SALE http://www.computerforum.com/47630-fs-a64-3000-6600-1gb-ram-w-stuff.html http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=mzvideos

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-11-2004, 07:21 PM	#3 (permalink)
Lorand VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Bucharest Age: 42 Posts: 3,042	The AAC format was designed to replace MP3 and achieve the same quality at lower bitrates (but that was not entirely a success)...

10-11-2004, 07:27 PM	#4 (permalink)
geranimo:// Gold Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Age: 20 Posts: 345	So you suggest me to take.......?

10-11-2004, 07:30 PM	#5 (permalink)
Lorand VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Bucharest Age: 42 Posts: 3,042	mp3

10-11-2004, 07:33 PM	#6 (permalink)
geranimo:// Gold Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Age: 20 Posts: 345	iight, but I've already ripped a part of my MP3 collection into AAC, will i lose quality if i rip it back to mp3?

10-11-2004, 07:44 PM	#7 (permalink)
Lorand VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Bucharest Age: 42 Posts: 3,042	Yes, but you have already losed quality ripping from mp3 to aac. So in that case stay with the aac.

10-11-2004, 08:05 PM	#8 (permalink)
geranimo:// Gold Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Age: 20 Posts: 345	Iight, I will, thnx for the advice