AAC is *supposedly* better sounding than mp3. They *say* a 128kpbs AAC file is like a 192kpbs mp3.

Yes... that is what I read too.

I have never heard an AAC file played through a club system that is why I was asking if anyone else had any opinions.

Also... there is the issue of using iTunes as an encoder. Many of us have switched to the EAC and Lame combo for better results.

What is your opinion on the iTunes AAC encoder?

Any alternatives?

I'm a 192kbps AAC man, I've read they sound superior at lower bitrates. I thought it was 128 AAC = 160 MP3. either way I think AAC is a better file format, I've never had a AAC file become corrupt, but I've had plenty of VBR mp3s get F'ed up. btw, I'm a PC user so don't think I'm just being biased.

Me personally, I don't like AAC or iTunes. So I can't help much on that. I'm sticking with mp3 and LAME.

Yup....

To me this means better sounding music that takes up less drive space...

Over what systems do you play your AAC files?

What is your issue with AAC?

iTunes... I can understand why anyone would not be into it.

If you're worried about how it would sound at a club, a 192kbps MP3 or AAC would sound just fine as long as it was encoded properly.

I'm a fan of iTunes, it has every feature I need. If you look at my profle I have my laptop specs, I run MS Vista Home Pro.

Portability.

If I was wanting great sound and it didn't matter what I was using I'd probably use APE. It's lossless, has great tagging, and works pretty well. The problem? Most playback mechanisms don't support it. And while there are alternatives, like WMA lossless, I wouldn't dream of using a Microsoft codec. The licensing on that alone precludes their use on most platforms other than Microsoft's own.

And AAC is pretty good. I use Atrac3 for minidisc and it's quite good as well. But in the end, the quality of the codec at a specific bitrate is less important than the tagging and cross platform acceptance and usability of the resulting files.

Let's face it. If we wanted to do great video we'd probably use DiVX. But DiVX support is lackluster at best.

APE might be a decent format (although I thought FLAC was the lossless standard by now) but it's not supported by serato. I think that's all DPR is concerned with.

It is...

I understand his point though.

I guess I will be using a combo of 320kb MP3 and 256kb AAC files (iTunes plus)

Honestly man, 320kbps is overkill, I personally would never encode anything over 256kbps. Even if you have unlimited drive space, you will notice no difference is sound quality, unless the piece of mind is worth if for you. Plus it takes SSL a little longer to process a 320kbps file and (don't quote me on this) I think the chance of having a drop out might be a little greater with 320kbps MP3 files.

I think it actually takes less processing to read a 320 file compared to a lesser rate. I may be completely off but i thought that there was less compression on the high bitrates for the program to decode.


Am i correct or just talkin out my ass again?

I thought that for a second too but I think that only applies to lossless (wav) files. but you might be right, I hope someone can confirm this.

Thats pretty much what it is... piece of mind.

There are a lot of members that swear by VBR, 192 and 256 MP3 encoding. They all have reasons for doing so.

My main reason for encoding at 320 is because when I started with Serato I had some... ummmm... "illegal" MP3s encoded at all different types of rates... from 64 to 320. Some sounded great... others like total ass over a club system. I had to start back at the begining of my list.. purchase all the music that sounded bad and start encoding. When reading about the encoding process i just chose the highest possible quality and stuck with it. At this point I am going to stick with it.

My laptop is used for Serato only. It has a 160GB hard drive that is not even close to full so space is fine. I figure by the time I fill it up laptop hard drives will be twice the size and half the price.

At times my friends will ask me to play some of thier MP3's at house parties and a lot of them are encoded at 160kb. I think this is a standard setting in iTunes maybe? Not sure.... but I can tell you these files sound TERRIBLE.

Sound quality is the most important thing for me personally. I could care less if 95% of the drunk crowd can't tell the difference.

if space weren't an issue, i'd be playing wavs. FLAC would be great - ALAC would be even better just cause I manage my library in iTunes and it would just be easier converting and tagging my stuff in the same program (right now i use itunes to tag and max to rip/convert).

Switching to AAC might work if it really sounds all that better than mp3 (itunes mp3 encoder sucks).

Here are some listening test results : wiki.hydrogenaudio.org

lol, well, you said it.

yeah it for sure takes more processing power (a little) to decode higher bit rates. Your thought process makes sense, but it just so happens to not really work that way. It shouldn't cause a drop out though, 'bout the only noticable thing I've seen happen in terms of playing higher bit rates would be on an MP3 player - the battery life is shorter.

Most club DJs will tell you that anything less than 320 on a big system will sound like shit. Clever EQ'ing can help with the lower bit rates but the rule of thumb is 320.....

I am not sure I understand the point of this topic this topic if Serato won't read AAC files anyways?

1.8 brings AAC support.

Umm.. well almost....

AAC files work great in 1.8... if you can actually get them to import.

well, I just converted all my AAC files (basically they were just older CD's that I imported in itunes a long time ago) to MP3 and left the volume setting the same and played both and couldn't tell a difference at all..... Therefore I deleted all the AAC files.

All my AAC files work great in 1.8.

What kind of issues are you having.

We are acutually having this same discussion on my site so rather than start a new thread here I am going to add to this one.

Some of our members have done a blind test for others to use and I also did a small mix for everyone to download and test themselves.

If anyone here cares to participate please feel free download the samples and decide for your self.

www.prodjforums.com

I will monitor both this and the thread I posted for feedback.

Thanks,

10 years later, but still valid,
the lower the bitrate, the more obvious AAC becomes as a clear winner.
While 128kbit AAC = 160-192kbit MP3,
64kbit aac roughly equals 128kbit mp3, and a space saving of over 50%!
32kbit aac sounds better than 64kbit MP3.

I say 'roughly', because MP3 creates obvious artifacts that AAC doesn't, not even at lower bitrates.
audio books on mobile sites can easily be encoded in 24kbps aac, or 32kbps WMA, but need at least 64, or 80kbps on MP3, for the audio not to have annoying artifact noises.

If your serious about quality it's always wav > aac/m4a/mp4 > mp3

Always try and utilize 320k files. I think the majority or record pools need to make this change already. Mp3's are really dead sounding compared to aac files. Also really bad encoded files no matter what the compression played really loud will damage speakers as well