>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
General
> Which format sounds better
Bookmark topic
For years on my pc i been transfering my music to my mp3 player or mobile phones as WMA files. I have decided to change format on the pc tomorrow to maybe mp3 which i have not done before. Although i know how to do it my question is which format sounds better and takes up the least space at 128kb's? For some reason i just never changed format and dont know which is generally the better sounding format. Cheers.
--
Posted: 2009-07-08 00:56:00
Edit :
Quote
I usualy do AAC @ 256kbps, or Mp3 @ 192kbps, both sound realy good. AFAIK best is WAV but those come out huge.
--
Posted: 2009-07-08 01:04:15
Edit :
Quote
Ok cheers. Lol i thought WAV was crap shows how much i know. On my pc i never seen the option for AAC although i do know it sounds good and it uses up less space too. I know Apple and Nokia use it alot AAC.
--
Posted: 2009-07-08 01:10:00
Edit :
Quote
even AAC is old now...
AAC+ is the new thing in...
a mp3 is inferior in qulaity to AAC+
encode your files to m4a format...
that's the best option
m4a is aac..
video is mp4 and audio is m4a
mp3's are quite old now...
wav is CD-quality format.. which means that almost 8 songs will take up 700mb!
not practical!!!
use itunes and m4a!
or get a windows media plugin...
--
Posted: 2009-07-08 04:47:50
Edit :
Quote
Flac is the best it's lossless, doubt the phones can handle Flacs though, just use 192kbps+ mp3's, the point of AAC is to sound good at low birates 96kbps etc, no point in having a 256kbps AAC.
--
Posted: 2009-07-09 13:04:22
Edit :
Quote
why do you want to encode 200+kbps songs????
i mean does it matter, if we encode them at 128??
they still sound good..
and more fit into the limited memory of our players....
--
Posted: 2009-07-09 17:10:00
Edit :
Quote
On 2009-07-09 13:04:22, number1 wrote:
Flac is the best it's lossless, doubt the phones can handle Flacs though, just use 192kbps+ mp3's, the point of AAC is to sound good at low birates 96kbps etc, no point in having a 256kbps AAC.
Why is there no point in 256kbps AAC? I thought a 96kbps AAC file was supposed to be similar to a 128 MP3, and a 256kbps AAC would therefore be comparible to a 320kbps MP3. I mean I would rather listen to a 320kbps MP3 rather than a 128kbps MP3, especially if I were to hook my player up to a speaker set. So a 256 AAC makes sense to me
--
Posted: 2009-07-09 17:42:25
Edit :
Quote
or get a windows media plugin...
Like what type?
Thanks
--
Posted: 2009-07-09 19:32:07
Edit :
Quote
FLAC is playable on Smartphones, just saw it in the File Associations list on CorePlayer in my s60, how large are FLAC files though on average eg. On a 5min song?
--
Posted: 2009-07-09 21:42:38
Edit :
Quote
Thanks for the advice anyhow
--
Posted: 2009-07-09 22:58:00
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
