wgjones3
08-16-2008, 01:14 PM
Practically my entire CD collection is backed up in 256k mp3 encoded through LAME at the highest quality settings. Well... in my blind test, 256k AAC VBR prouduces a slightly smaller file (8.8 mb vs. 8.9 for the mp3) and the high-end frequency range is encoded much better. I tested with Sara Bareilles "Love Song", which I didn't really consider much of an encoding challenge but within the first few bars I could hear a difference on my laptop speakers.
I have never listened to the CD itself, only my mp3s, and since re-ripping the CD in AAC, I'm hearing reverb I've never noticed, the attack on the symbols seems much crisper, and I'm hearing instruments in the mix that in places I'd never noticed before. Granted the difference is subtle--256k mp3 is nearly CD quality itself--but it seems the separation of the frequencies is much better with AAC, much more crisp and not nearly as muddy in areas where the arrangement gets complex.
It kinda scares me to think how much I'd notice on actual loudspeakers compared to laptop speakers, and whether the difference is in the decoder iTunes uses instead of the quality of the encoding--whatever the case, I'm hooked on AAC. I doubt I'll ever use mp3 again!
Just my $0.02, YMMV.
I have never listened to the CD itself, only my mp3s, and since re-ripping the CD in AAC, I'm hearing reverb I've never noticed, the attack on the symbols seems much crisper, and I'm hearing instruments in the mix that in places I'd never noticed before. Granted the difference is subtle--256k mp3 is nearly CD quality itself--but it seems the separation of the frequencies is much better with AAC, much more crisp and not nearly as muddy in areas where the arrangement gets complex.
It kinda scares me to think how much I'd notice on actual loudspeakers compared to laptop speakers, and whether the difference is in the decoder iTunes uses instead of the quality of the encoding--whatever the case, I'm hooked on AAC. I doubt I'll ever use mp3 again!
Just my $0.02, YMMV.