Alternative to AAC?

[pwrstick]

I have over 5,000 songs that I ripped in iTunes using AAC at 160kbps. I found it sounded much better than MP3.

Problem now is if I want to use a portable MP3 player, it pretty much has to be an iPod since that seems to be the only one that supports AAC.

So my question is this: what is a good codec to look into converting AAC to? Ogg seems like a good candidate, but my real and main concern is retaining as much quality as possible.

In other words, does anyone know of a particular codec that AAC converts to without much extra loss? That still sounds awesome?

Thanks!

[neilthecellist]

Re: Alternative to AAC?

Hang on, what're you saying? Converting from lossy to lossy is always bad.

[xoas]

Re: Alternative to AAC?

First off-
Do you have a portable player in mind?
I ask only because this seems to have been what got you where you are now. If you are looking for a file format for playing on a portable player but you have no candidates in mind, you may find it difficult (though not impossible) to find players that will support formats other than mp3 and (less commonly) wma. These will not sound as good on a home stereo as your AAC files (although you could have ripped to higher quality mp3). While ogg is better than mp3 it is not as well supported by portable players. There are a few but these are hard to find.
From a strictly qualitative aspect, there are players (a few) that support FLAC. FLAC is lossless whereas mp3, ogg and AAC are lossy formats (they trade extra compression for some loss of audio quality). FLAC could make perfect copies of your AAC files (whereas converting to mp3 or ogg you will lose further quality over what was already lost when you ripped to AAC). The big drawback is that these FLAC files will probably be much larger (say 3 times larger perhaps) than your AAC files.
I would start with your portable player first. Keep your AAC files and enjoy them on your computer as just that. When you decide on a portable player convert what you wish to a format appropriate for that player. These will not be as good as if you ripped them straight to whatever format you end up working with (rather than ripping to AAC and then to something else). But I suspect that you will be able to get good results.

Best wishes,
Bill

[LtData]

Re: Alternative to AAC?

Also, converting your AAC files to FLAC will only preserve their current quality. They will not be able to regain the quality you lost when you first converted to AAC.

As for formats instead of AAC, in all honesty, WMA is better than mp3 at the same bitrate and is supported on pretty much EVERY stinking portable player worth anything. If you can't get ogg support, just go with wma.

[pwrstick]

Re: Alternative to AAC?

Thank you all for your help!

Honestly, I was going to let new information help determine which player I might buy. For example, if converting from lossy.aac to lossy.wma was much better than converting to lossy.atrac(sp?) I wouldn't go with a Sony player.

If wma is the most widely used format then I might have to go with that one. I wont go with the FLAC option, though that is useful to know about in the future.

This being said, would the loss engendered from lossy.aac to lossy.wma be offset noticeably if I converted from 160kbps aac to say 256kbps wma? I'm guessing yes. The less loss I incur the better. Perhaps I'll have to rerip some CDs ...

[xoas]

Re: Alternative to AAC?

I would advise you to steer clear of Sony models since their proprietary Atrac format is difficult to re-transfer to ANY other formats should you want to do so. This same reservation would hold perhaps for some other models of portable players as well.

I agree with LtData that wma performs better than does mp3 at similar bitrates and I do think that wma is fairly commonly supported by portable players but I think mp3 still is far more prevalent than wma when it comes to portable player support.

When it comes to converting your AAC files to wma, you should find that a 256 kbs wma file is a better copy than a 160 kbs copy. Neither wma file would sound as good as if you had ripped straight to wma (because you have loost some quality when you ripped to AAC). But all of this is theory. I would urge you to try some listening tests to see where your ears detect a difference, keeping in mind that music played on portable players generally are dealing with non-quality listening conditions (small headphones, street noise, you watching out for traffic) so that what makes a notable difference over your home stereo might not make a difference with your portable player. Anyway, you will find that theere will be a point where higher quality won't make a significant difference. Your ears, your musical tastes and your equipment will all be factors in determining where that difference lies.

Best wishes,
Bill