AAC versus MP3

[rob1963]

I was just wondering...

When it comes to storing music, which format uses more space on a hard drive? AAC or MP3? or is there no difference?

Thanks in advance! :)

[Vectis]

Depends on the sampling bitrate, but assuming all things equal, AAC is a little smaller, maybe 10-20%.

Given the high capacities/small price of HDDs and the lack of general support for AAC I'd strongly recommend high-bitrate MP3 for the foreseeable.

Just like VHS wasn't quite as good as Betamax, it was the consumer's choice; same with MP3.

[rob1963]

Thanks vectis, and I completely agree...MP3 is definately the way to go!

:)

[BeerFunk]

Aac?! :confused:

:p

No, seriously, it may be more efficient and all, but MP3 is the recognised format, always has been.

[Danno13]

You may as well go with WAV...given how cheap hard drives are. Its much quicker to rip the CDs too!

[Thames Valley Discos]

You may as well go with WAV...given how cheap hard drives are. Its much quicker to rip the CDs too!
What about 50Mb to one track, don't think thats a good idea.
Would need a rather large HDD to store tracks at that size

[Danno13]

a 500GB hard drive is less than £60... and it won't be long till you can get a terrabyte drive for not much over £100...

[Thames Valley Discos]

so 20 tracks to a gig, thats only 2000 tracks to a "terrabyte" not that many

[BeerFunk]

Certainly not very efficient, considering no-one can differentiate between 320kbps and wave (although you always get those that conivnce themselves they can hear a difference, just because logically wave is superior :rolleyes: )

[PropellerHeadCase]

I have to agree - if I was storing my 25,000 tracks as waves I'd be at 1.2TB rather than the present 200GB - drives may be relatively cheap, but there's also no point continually upgrading.

[Danno13]

so 20 tracks to a gig, thats only 2000 tracks to a "terrabyte" not that many

I think your calculator is broken... thats 20,000 tracks to a terrabyte! :D

[Thames Valley Discos]

I think your calculator is broken... thats 20,000 tracks to a terrabyte! :D

Is it?
ummm
20 = 1GB
200 = 100GB
2000 = 1000GB
Oh i see now i missed
200 = 10GB
so
20 =1GB
200=10GB
2000 =100GB
20000 = 1000GB
But you cant ID tag WAV files and they take longer to load in Digital player software

[Corabar Steve]

But you cant ID tag WAV files
Yes you can.

[Vectis]

I think your calculator is broken... thats 20,000 tracks to a terrabyte! :D

Actually, by the time you've formatted a 1TB HDD you'll be down to about 920GB anyway... :D

[Thames Valley Discos]

Yes you can.

ok smart ass;)
but still see no point having a 50mb file when you can have as good as quality in an 8mb file.
i find the larger the hdd, the less reliable they become.
Besides won't be long before we get fast data transfer from solid state drives. These will be smaller in size (storage) so i'd prefer to keep my 8mb tracks so i can fit more onto the newer drives

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Yes you can.

Can you? I thought you rang me up and told me you couldn't. Did you find a way?

[BeerFunk]

You can tag PCM Wave?

[Corabar Steve]

Can you? I thought you rang me up and told me you couldn't. Did you find a way?

Audiograbber tags WAVs the same as it does MP3s. (as far as I can see)

[Corabar Steve]

You can tag PCM Wave?

What's PCM?

[Vectis]

You CAN tag a .wav ... problem is it then ceases to be a .wav. Sure, it may look like a .wav, sound like a .wav, play like a .wav but a .wav it isn't.

Don't bet on future software/hardware supporting your b'stardised file format.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

What's PCM?

The internet, she say ....Pulse code modulation

[Vectis]

What's PCM?

Pulse-code modulation (PCM) is a digital representation of an analog signal where the magnitude of the signal is sampled regularly at uniform intervals.

aka a WAV file.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Way too slow Martin.

[Vectis]

Way too slow Martin.

Maybe. But my response was more comprehensive and took a few seconds longer to type :D

[Corabar Steve]

You CAN tag a .wav ... problem is it then ceases to be a .wav. Sure, it may look like a .wav, sound like a .wav, play like a .wav but a .wav it isn't.

Don't bet on future software/hardware supporting your b'stardised file format.

HD2500 does :sj:

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Maybe. But my response was more comprehensive and took a few seconds longer to type :D

Or copy and paste...;)

[BeerFunk]

The thing is, CBR MP3, say at 320kbps, is going to be accepted on every hard drive controller/PC/portable MP3 player under the sun, is virtually CD quality, and doesn't take up too much space. I think all of these factors make it the ideal format to rip to.

OK, you can fit 20,000 tracks on a TB drive, but you will ideally need at least 2 of those drives out with you, and it would be sensible to keep a master drive at home too.

Even if another format suits your hardware now, you wouldn't want to have to convert or re-rip the whole lot again further down the line, would you? :eek:

[PropellerHeadCase]

Once you've got your head round PCM jump to EFM as the next stage in digital audio, for CD anyway :D

[Corabar Steve]

Unbelievable

[Vectis]

Or copy and paste...;)

Yeah, OK, but I do use CTRL-C & CTRL-V so that's typing :devil: