128 kbps aac what is it

That's a good enough reason to say they're not good enough. In my own listening environments, I can't tell a difference either. I haven't gone this route, but if I'd had a few extra dollars the last time I ripped my music collection which probably will be THE last time I rip my music collection , I probably would have done it this way. Finally, the only place I know that can beat the iTMS is allofmp3. It's the best way to be certain! The iTMS previews are meant to be exactly the same quality as the real thing, so you should be able to judge for yourself.

Is this correct? I was under the impression the loss of quality happened when the files were transcoded from the source material to. But you're saying that, say, an. Wouldn't the. I think what ascullion meant is that you'll never be able to convert them to another lossy format without loss of fidelity.

I can hear the difference between and I play my tunes through my home theater system. The classic example is an audio switcher box or piece of software presenting three options, A, B and X, with X being randomly assigned to A or B. If you can consistently tell whether X has been assigned to A or B, then the two samples can be considered different for your ears. As for bitrate, personally, for portable use, quality doesn't matter, only being able to cram as much music on there as possible.

I did some listening tests of my own a while back when deciding on an AAC bitrate and I decided on kbps because any difference between the kbps AAC and original file were not really noticeable to me during casual listening and the minor improvements of using kbps was not worth the extra file size in my opinion. Though in my ABX tests my transparency level was kbps on the samples I tested. But as said, it all depends on your ears. Do some listening tests of your own and come to your own conclusion on which is best.

Though, I and others on this board will probably love giving you our opinions. Last Edit : by Teqnilogik. As always it's best for you to decide, but a couple other variables are important here. What environment are you going to be listening busy city streets, quite library, etc. Personally, I think up to the and kbps comparison show differences in the best case scenarios quiet with revealing headphones and amp and are worth the extra space. When you encode an MP3 file, the transfer and compression of the audio data into the new format is measured in kilobits.

They sound thin and tinny compared to a file encoded at, say, Kbps. Your ears may differ. As a bonus, the AAC version takes up much less space on your hard disk and iPod. For both formats, the higher the bit rate, the larger the file size.

For example, an MP3 file encoded at Kbps sounds a heck of a lot better than one recorded at 96—but it takes up over twice as much disk space 1. Most audiophiles who place great value on the best possible sound quality tend to avoid MP3, AAC, and other digital audio formats because these formats use compression to create smaller files.

The trade-off is that the highest and lowest ends of the sound range are lost. Most average listeners don't notice the loss, but it can be a deal-breaker for audio aficionados. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Use precise geolocation data.

Select personalised content. Create a personalised content profile. Measure ad performance. Select basic ads. Create a personalised ads profile. Select personalised ads. Apply market research to generate audience insights. Measure content performance.