Posted by Jon B on 01/03/06 20:25

Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <Fozuf.51054$DQ4.1265882@weber.videotron.net>, NRen2k5
> <napsterneorenegade@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I'm not talking about you in your car. I'm talking about ordinary
> > people, in ordinary listening environments. And believe me, in most
> > people's living rooms, they /don't/ need a $1000+ hifi to tell the
> > difference between iTunes' crummy MP3's and its AAC's. Anybody should be
> > able to tell the difference even straight from the iPod with the stock
> > earbuds.
>
> Are you asserting that Apple destroys mp3 encoded material on playback
> or that they encode it badly?
>
> I ask this, because mp3 at 128 kbits/sec plays badly on iTunes, Finder
> and VLC on this Mac, however and wherever it was encoded. Certainly
> worse in most cases than the 128kbits/sec AAC encoded stuff from the
> music store, bad and all as that is.
>
> That leads me to believe that all 128 kbits/sec mp3 is suitable only
> for playing in a loud rattly car while you are paying more attention to
> your driving than the music as, of course, you should be.
>
> Even though my ears as old as the rest of me, I reckon that 160
> Kbit/sec AAC is the minimum bitrate that can't be distinguished from
> the CD original on modestly priced living room equipment, and that
> equates to at least 192 Kbit/sec mps and I don't care whose encoder put
> it there.

Well 128kbps is according to Apple the same quality as a 160kbps mp3.
Personally I rip everything at 192kbps mp3 to get the best trade off
between quality and storage space. I don't rip in aac as the fairly
recent mp3 player in the car can't play aac files and I want my files to
play on anything.
--
Jon B
real email to usenet at jonbradbury dot com

[Back to original message]