|
AAC files (.m4a) and the uneasy transition away from mp3
|
View this Thread in Original format
| david.michael |
So, I've never been an iTunes kind of person, but coming to the realization that a lot of the stuff available at places like Beatport are available on iTunes for much less is making me think about using it instead.
Regardless of being the huge geek that I am, I don't really know anything about AAC files, and was wondering if anyone could think of any reason I should not use them. I know DRM is out of the picture now, and I can't think of anything I'd want to use that didn't support .m4a files these days.
I guess I'm just mostly nervous about switching formats away from my trusted old friend, mp3. I know I can convert them, but I'm a little uneasy about the idea of converting from one lossy format to another...especially for a digital file that I PAY for.
So, my questions:
1.) Anyone else have experience moving away from mp3 and regretting it?
2.) Anyone else use AAC files in a digital DJing environment, and have any comments? (I use Traktor Pro, which does support AAC files and tags)
3.) Any experience converting between the two, and noticing the quality loss? |
|
|
| pozz |
flac is fantastic but not supported in any of my old mp3 players.
i only have a few files in AAC and they are just a slight bother because i dont want to convert - there is always gonna be some ugly dithering when converting.
iTunes is suspect for quality. i remember reading somewhere that they only give out 128kps AAC. perhaps this has changed since that time -- have you bought anything yet? any info on bitrates? (even on the discogs online store .wav files cost more than mp3s. maybe this accounts for the price difference) |
|
|
| Chimney |
I try to do only flacs now a days, the only problem is that they are fairly expensive. Quality-wise I never go sub CBR 320.
I tried doing some iTunes .m4a things in the past, but I've discovered that for some odd reason, the sound was really strange when converting to .mp3 as in not loud enough. It could be due to the fact that I didn't quite deepen myself into how to correctly convert between them. |
|
|
| skip |
| I have all my ripped music in Apple Lossless and I've purchased several hundred tunes from the iTunes music store. No problems whatsoever. iTunes music store music are 256 kbps CBR AAC. I do not notice a difference between a 256 kbps CBR AAC and a 320 kbps CBR MP3. |
|
|
| woscar |
| AAC =/= FLAC =/= Apple Lossless |
|
|
| skip |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
AAC =/= FLAC =/= Apple Lossless |
I don't think anyone's suggesting that. I only took Apple Lossless as an example cuz it's .m4a too and an even rarer format than AAC and still I've had exactly zero problems with it. Maybe that wasn't clear from my post though. |
|
|
| woscar |
In re-reading the posts in the thread, I guess I misunderstood. :p
Anyways, based on experience with friends, a lot of them think that those 3 formats are the same thing. |
|
|
| david.michael |
| No worries, woscar... I was getting the same impression from the replies :) |
|
|
| david.michael |
Also, to simplify my original post... My concern is not "Is 256kbps AAC sufficient sound quality", because I'm already sure that will be just fine. It's more an issue of practicality and I want to make sure I don't overlook anything.
So, I was looking for stories like:
"I was happy with AAC until I realized I couldn't play my songs on my XBox anymore",
".m4a files are fine until you try to play them in Traktor, it tends to lose tag information",
"Most CDJs can't read .m4a files, so you'd have to convert",
"You can't add .m4a files to your existing .m3u playlists",
etc. etc.
(I don't know that any of the above are true, I'm just making up random possibilities in my head.) |
|
|
| basilisk |
| FLAC is future-proof. I know I'm sick of continually fiddling around with my music collection every 2 or 3 years. "This is it, the very last time I organize." Go AAC now and you'll want something different later on. Go FLAC and you'll never turn back. |
|
|
| david.michael |
| quote: | Originally posted by basilisk
FLAC is future-proof. I know I'm sick of continually fiddling around with my music collection every 2 or 3 years. "This is it, the very last time I organize." Go AAC now and you'll want something different later on. Go FLAC and you'll never turn back. |
But you can't purchase tunes for cheaper via iTunes in FLAC format... can you? My opening statement was: "So, I've never been an iTunes kind of person, but coming to the realization that a lot of the stuff available at places like Beatport are available on iTunes for much less is making me think about using it instead."
However, I've got to say that this is the most valid argument for FLAC that I've heard to date. Never really thought of it this way (from the perspective of converting formats later down the line). |
|
|
| TranceElevation |
| Never had problems with m4a |
|
|
|
|
