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, Sonos ZP90, 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. Cables: That Cable HDMI, Chord Crimsons, CAT6 backbone Sonos S5s in the bedrooms
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