>> Professor Amaral wrote: >> AAC is suppose to be a better compression format Better quality >> smaller file sizes Thats the report, I haven't tested it yet. I have and it is. >>>> >> It doesn't matter how good it is; if you convert from MP3 with a >> lossy protocol (AAC), the result will sound worse than the MP3 >> source. Common sense would tell you that. But my ears/brain tell me otherwise. AAC fils ripped from MP3 files SOUND BETTER TO ME. I can't explain it and I don't want this to be true. But it is for me. >> To get a better sound, you would have to go back to the original >> encoding (AIFF) on >> the CD. Is it really worth it? Definitely worth it. Go Dolby. ! ! ! >> Doesn't the new iPod continue to play MP3's? Yes it does. But they need to be bigger to sound almost as good as the AAC files sound. >> >> This is an important issue; I think. Do you want to convert your >> whole MP3 >> collection to AAC, if it degrades the sound? It doesn't degrade the sound at all. It enhances the sound. Don't ask me how. I have no clue as to how or why. But it does. >> Do you perhaps want to keep all your MP3s intact while you also >> convert everything to AAC? That would double your backup memory >> requirement. Once the AAC files are ripped you can lose the MP3 files if you are using only AAC iPods etc. 250GB HDs are down to $256 after rebate and sales tax in California. No problem. Plus you just store all of this on CDs or DVD-ROMs. 42 CD-ROMs or 7 DVD-ROMs = a 30GB iPod's worth of songs. >> >> Professor Amaral On Friday, May 2, 2003, at 07:36 AM, Timothy Pitts wrote: > > And thus my reason from starting from scratch. I will import all of my > CD's > again only at 128kbps (AAC) instead of 160kbps (MP3). I'm wit you Timmy!!! Go Dolby !!!! AAC Rules! I am totally blown away by the quality of my 128 AAC from 192 MP3 transcoded files. But source is source and CD AIFF Files MUST be the preferred source for a permanent collection of 128 AAC files if you still have the CDs to rip from. k