[iTunes] Re: Best way to re-capture into AAC?

[John]

Yup,
Getting higher fidelity than what you started with is sort of like 
water flowing uphill. You can never get improved fidelity than what you 
start out with. In the case of mp3 to AAC, you begin with the fidelity 
of the mp3 (which is less than the original CD); hence, the resultant 
AAC can never be as good as the mp3 (Signals & Systems EE410 and with a 
little entropy thrown in for good measure).

John
***********************************************************
On Monday, Apr 28, 2003, at 19:05 US/Pacific, Thubten Kunga wrote:

> My GUESS is probably. I plan to go back to all the source CDs and 
> re-encode AAC. But from AAC to MP3 should be ok since that's what 
> Apple's counting on working. Anybody know? I'm working on several 
> re-encodes like this now to test how it sounds.
>
> AAC from the source CD at 128kbps sounds great.
> 96kbps MP3 encoded from the AAC files sounds almost the same.
> 192 kbps MP3 from the source CD sounds the same.
>
> I honestly can't tell the difference among all three of these 
> encodings. Anybody else doing these kinds of test today?
>
> Bear in mind I am listening through a 125 watt per channel amp on 
> large 3 way speakers flanking my monitor and a 15 inch 400 watt 
> powered subwoofer on the floor. So I am comparing these files with a 
> maximum fidelity capable rig.
>
>
>
> k
>
> On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 06:13  PM, Chris Reinhart wrote:
>
>>> I don't know if this has been covered yet in this thread, but you 
>>> absolutely cannot "recapture" mp3 files at a higher fidelity then 
>>> what was used to rip the songs in the first place without going back 
>>> to the original source (CDs) and recapturing the songs at a higher 
>>> sampling rate.
>>
>> True,
>> But Does converting mp3 files to AAC files result in double encoding? 
>>  Do you wind up with a worse sounding file then you started with 
>> (mp3) > ?
>