[kirkmc]

AAC files sound better than MP3 files at lower bit rates (sorry if that wasn't clear in the article). Personally, I've settled on ripping my CDs at 160 kbps AAC. It's a good compromise between quality and space. I don't hear any difference between, say, 160 and 256, and with 38,000 in my library, the difference would be about 100 GB of additional disk space.

But as I've said in this thread, and as Chris reiterated, do a blind test and see if you can hear the difference. Too many people profess that there's an audible difference (or even mock the group of classical music reviewers I had do a blind test rentely), and not enough go to the trouble of trying it themselves.

[Steve_S]

Chris Breen said:

Have you ever participated in a blind listening test? If not, it's time to try. I've conducted a couple of them with people who were just as sure as you that they could detect the difference between 128kbps AAC files, 160kbps MP3 files, and AIFF files. When put to the test, they couldn't.

I have participated in similar tests. On one hand, I don't disagree with you that some people cannot tell the difference. However, I'd also suggest that the lower quality equipment (be it headphones, speakers, etc.) the less it matters. In many cases, 128 kbps and 160 kbps are nearly impossible to distinguish. I have always been able to distinguish 128 kbps from the CD source (or AIFF). Even within the iTunes store, the difference between 128 and 256 kbps songs are significant enough for me to distinguish. Maybe that means I'm gifted in an audio way, maybe it means my equipment is sensitive enough to produce a difference from the source file or maybe it means I'm just lucky. Either way, the blanket statement "you won't notice a difference" doesn't apply to all. Unless of course, I'm using stock ear buds while mowing the lawn on my tractor, etc.

Also, asking people which file sounds better isn't a good test either. There will be some that actually favor the tinny sound of a 96kbps file. That doesn't make it better. The best test is to conduct a series of tests with 3 versions of the song. In these tests, have two of them the same and one file encoded differently. If the user can tell which file is different, they can hear a difference regardless as to whether they perceive that difference to be better or worse.

[Chris Breen]

Steve_S said:

>The best test is to conduct a series of tests with 3 versions of the song. In these tests, have two of them the same and one file encoded differently. If the user can tell which file is different, they can hear a difference regardless as to whether they perceive that difference to be better or worse.

Right. We're discussing this very thing in the thread to this story.

[bigcloits]

Holy geez, audiophilism is tedious.

Thanks for the article, Kirk. It was useful to me and every one else who isn?t deluded into thinking they can hear dog whistles and infrasonic whale song. ;-)