hye guys,

I want to ask,is there any quality diifference between ACC 128Kbps and AAC 256Kbps?
i very curious cause i want the best for me

All my music currently converted by Sony Media Go Music Player as sync my Sony Ericsson Zylo with that music player

So which one better?

Sony? hmmm...
256Kbps is always better than 128kpbs for sure unless the encoder have bugs

And i think 256k is "too much" for normal user, unless you are audiophine or you have golden ears.
128kbps is already good enough if the encoder is Nero AAC encoder or iTunes AAC encoder.
Read this: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=AAC_FAQ

ya sony
currently using walkman 4.0 on my zylo

so i i think i should change back to 128Kbps?
since iTunes got write there (convert to high qulity AAC : 128Kbps)

btw,my sony ericsson zylo can't play FLAC but sony said zylo support it..can help me?

128k is enough imho. IF you found out the 128k encoding produce audio artifacts just go 192k.
OR you are using high end earphone which you could tell the quality difference between 128k and 256k.

Does the phone comes with software that allow you to convert the audio to FLAC? And FLAC is more overkill than 256kbps lol
Cant help much since im still using the ancient w610i

i'm using Apple Earphone (original from iPod Touch 4th G)
and i also got Sony Ericsson HPM-88 (noice cancellation)

nope,they not give any software to convert FLAC.
how to us FLAC then?

haha upgrade la xD

FLAC format really overkill...
i dl hardstyle album wif FLAC..
1000kbps man..
WTF>>

but..sony claim sony ericsson zylo can play FLAC

but,i got problem playing it

ya FLAC is damn nice

my car HU cant support tht format..so sad

Ahh yes Finally my Sony Ericsson Zylo can play FLAC
After upgraded to 4GB micro sd class 4

Lossless format, thats why

If you are going MP3, look for Encoders that support VBR(Variable Bit Rate) 0. It gives you highest quality a MP3 can offer without having a huge file size. Bare in mind, MP3 and AAC is still lossy format.

haha i dun mind to use Mp3 or AAC
cause my phone now already can play FLAC
after change to higher speed memory card

FLAC is audio archiver, you can call it "ZIP for Audio". most ppl use FLAC or other lossless format are for backup thier audio CD.
if the CD damaged so ppl could use it to restore the audio back to other CD.
Or audiophile use FLAC to listen on thier high end audio equipment.

No point to use FLAC if you are always listening audio on other noisy environment.
Just my humble opinion, AAC 160kbps or 192kbps are already "near-transparent"(NERO aac encoder and iTunes ONLY), plus their filesize is much smaller than FLAC which are usually 15mb and above.
you can use FLAC as long as you have enough space on your memory card

what u mean on noisy environment?
i always use on earphone got noise cancellation mah
that what u mean?

but i can see so much difference between AAC and FLAC
on instrument and voice quality..
so clearly hear difference on Afterlife - Avenged sevenfold between AAC and FLAC

about memory card i don't mind to upgrade 16GB

btw,i use FLAC for best music experience and show off to my school friends which their phone can't support FLAC

Noise canceling headphones MAY reduce audio quality, or add more audio artifacts to your audio
I dont think high end headphone are equipped with ANC. i could be wrong though.

and if you tell the ppl on hydrogenaudio you could tell the difference between FLAC vs AAC, you could get banned on there if without any proof lol

320kbps more stable..

what do you mean by stable?

at least share some argument instead of posting a one liner.

This post has been edited by fariz: Jun 21 2011, 11:03 AM

Flac lossless gives more impression that the music is better, that's why it's sounds better in your ear. Placebo effect is important here

ACC better than MP3 if running lower (kbps)
Like,ACC 128kbps better than MP3 320kbps

ACC can catch better/wider range of "hertz"

that's what i know

Thats why if some one claims if he can tell the difference between FLAC vs AAC at specific bit rate, that ppl need to do ABX test...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_..._compression%29

---

Added on June 22, 2011, 1:10 amdepend on the Encoder...
AAC 128kbps encoding have lowpass filter(16khz) enabled IIRC. while LAME 320kbps encoding does not have lowpass...
thought this will need to do ABX test to proof AAC 128kbps is better than LAME 320kbps
and will require killer samples too.

This post has been edited by 1024kbps: Jun 22 2011, 01:10 AM