title
Products            Buy            Support Forum            Professional            About            Codec Central
 

Acc and MP3 Lame question

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • pyroclastic

    • Aug 2012
    • 2

    Acc and MP3 Lame question

    Hi guys I just want to ask about Aac vbr and mp3 lame. The most comfortable bitrate in mp3 for me is CBR 192 kbps. I realized that aac files can be smaller so I tried it. When I go to a vbr radio button, my screenreader (I'm visually impaired) says: quality vbr: 150 kbps. Is it equivalent to 192 kbps? Thanks.
    Last edited by pyroclastic; August 29, 2012, 07:33 AM.
  • eaglescout1998
    dBpoweramp Enthusiast

    • Apr 2009
    • 197

    #2
    Re: Aac and MP3 Lame question

    A few things.....

    1.) Unless you have ancient equipment, I would not use CBR. VBR is far more efficient.

    2.) It's not entirely accurate to claim that AAC files can be smaller. AAC is a more advanced codec. It has been suggested that an AAC encoded at 128 kbps will be more transparent than an MP3 at the same bitrate. However, I would not place my complete faith in such claims. The key is how it sounds to you, personally.

    3.) This is important: DO NOT CONVERT YOUR MP3s to AAC. Transcoding (Google it) from one lossy codec to another is NEVER a good idea. If you are intent on switching to AAC, I would re-rip your CD collection. Preferably to something lossless (like FLAC). Since FLACs are lossless, you can transcode till you're blue in the face.

    4.) If it ain't broke, why fix it? If you're happy with CBR 192, there is really no need to change things.

    Comment

    • pyroclastic

      • Aug 2012
      • 2

      #3
      Re: Aac and MP3 Lame question

      Originally posted by eaglescout1998
      3.) This is important: DO NOT CONVERT YOUR MP3s to AAC. Transcoding (Google it) from one lossy codec to another is NEVER a good idea. If you are intent on switching to AAC, I would re-rip your CD collection. Preferably to something lossless (like FLAC). Since FLACs are lossless, you can transcode till you're blue in the face.
      How mutch lost in quality to the aac file? Is it as noticeable as say, from 192 to 160 mp3?
      Originally posted by eaglescout1998
      4.) If it ain't broke, why fix it? If you're happy with CBR 192, there is really no need to change things.
      I have to make it smaller because I'm running out of memmory.

      Comment

      • eaglescout1998
        dBpoweramp Enthusiast

        • Apr 2009
        • 197

        #4
        Re: Aac and MP3 Lame question

        How mutch lost in quality to the aac file? Is it as noticeable as say, from 192 to 160 mp3?
        Since you are the one who is going to be listening, only you can answer that question.

        What I can tell you is this: Every time you encode with a lossy encoder (MP3 or AAC), the quality will decrease. There's no way to get that quality back. It's gone. If transcode from 192kbps to 160kbps, the resulting file will be of worse quality than it would have been had you ripped to 160kbps in the first place. That's why lossy-to-lossy transcoding is not recommended.

        Comment

        Working...

        ]]>