clearly the acc is better, because the resulting files will be smaller
I personally think 320 is the point of diminishing returns. Lossless is better, but not worth the file sizes. I found it very difficult to differentiate the two on blind testing. It is also arguable that my AV system is the bottleneck here.
Paul's BR/805 system thread
(where the photos live) Paul's Flickr page
Me personally: Lossless. That way, whatever format you eventually decide is right for your particular needs, you can always downsample to get - e.g. Lossless to AAC...
With lossless, the first cut is the only one...
Hi Fi: Arcam A85, DV88 (CD only), Project Debut II, AE Compact-1. AV: Arcam AVR250, DV79, Sony BDP-S760, Monitor Audio Silver 8i, RS-LCR, RXFX, Sonos ZP90, Pioneer KRP500A. 2nd AV: Pioneer SX-SWR2, Dell Zino HD, KEF KHT2005.2 eggs, Sonos ZP90. That Cable HDMI, Chord Crimsons and Sonos ZPS5s everywhere & a spare Yamaha RXV-667!
Given the parameters of your question, OP (you havent really given any), the above would be my subjective answer (*I may even suggest diminishing returns kick in before 320kbps, with LAME), though I have more experience with MP3 than AAC.
Objectively, of course, Apple Lossless id better.
Formerly known as al7478...
HC: Panasonic PXP 42 V20; Panasonic DMP BD35; Humax Foxsat-HDR
Music: Optical out from Asus P7H55-M Motherboard into AVI ADM 9.1 speakers.
"Music will provide the light you cannot resist"
Forget my edit (wich i cant edit try as i might, even after disabling rich text it doesnt appear), as I'm refering there to MP3 but you are refering to AAC. Sorry, I'm tired.
Though I wouldn't mind betting I can't hear the difference between AAC and MP£ at low bitrates.
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing