[iTunes] Re: Batch Converting MP3 to AAC

[Ron Skinner]

Ted-

I did some in-depth testing in which I compared 160 kbps AAC files directly
to the original CDs. Even with the most discriminating equipment I couldn't
tell the difference. These are highly individual results and, because I'm
probably older than you, you would be well advised to conduct your own
tests. But if you can't hear the difference, why use the space?

Something many iPod users don't seem to be aware of is that higher bit rates
mean shorter battery life.

Ron

On 5/29/03 5:13 PMTed Goranson wrote:

> At 2:39 PM -0700, 5/29/03, Ron Skinner wrote concerning [iTunes] Re:
> Batch Converting MP3 to AAC:
>> I recently did a test conversion of 256 kbps MP3 to 160 kbps AAC files. I
>> could hear absolutely no difference between the two, even with very high
>> quality headphones.
>> 
>> I agree with Kunga that it's best to re-rip from your CDs, but if you have a
>> large number of high bit rate tracks, it's practically effortless to batch
>> convert them. The savings is really worthwhile, and it will make a 10 gigger
>> seem like a 15 gig iPod.
> 
> How about going the other way. I am ripping CDs at ACC 320 k because
> I have lots of room on my desktop drive. If I later batch convert
> them down to say 160 (for a future iPod) will the quality be much
> lower than if I had ripped them at 160?
> 
> Best, Ted