Trade in and Save $50 with HP
MP3 players: AAC or MP3
AAC or MP3
by glasshole2 - 12/13/05 9:04 PMWhich is better for quality? i am looking at digitizing my music collection and am wondering which would be the better choice. i realize that MP3 is more universal but would i be sacrificing audio quality?
AAC
by - 12/13/05 11:52 PM In reply to: AAC or MP3 by glasshole2AAC is mostly better than MP3.
Around 128kbps and below, AAC is much better. Above 128kbps, MP3 starts to get a leg up on it... but unless you have really sensitive hearing you probably won't be able to tell the difference.
AAC for all
by yangman88 - 12/14/05 12:06 PM In reply to: AAC byActually AAC is better than Mp3 at all kbps. AAC takes up 2/3 of the space of mp3 files while offering a little bit better quality. So, at 128 kbps AAC, a song sounds better than 192 kbps mp3. AAC is actually a continuation of the mp3 conversion project. Some samll company(sorry, forgot the name) wanted to compress cd files to put on a computers harddrive to save space while minimalizing the loss of quality. Hence, mp3 was born. The AAC conversion is a continuation of that project, that's why if you look under the file type for your AAC songs, it actually lists them as MPEG-4. Apple has sence then bought the rights to AAC and that's the reason why only ipods are allowed to play them.
Wrong
by - 12/15/05 4:57 AM In reply to: AAC for all by yangman88"Actually AAC is better than Mp3 at all kbps."
Not necessarily true. Although AAC is more advanced, MP3 has been more finely tuned.
(http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=24462&hl=)
It seems that the quality is not consistent between different versions of the AAC encoder in iTunes.
"Some samll company(sorry, forgot the name) wanted to compress cd files to put on a computers harddrive to save space while minimalizing the loss of quality. Hence, mp3 was born."
Wrong. MP3 was created by MPEG (Moving Picture Experts Group). It was an improvement on MP2, which was created for Digital Audio Broadcast.
"Apple has sence then bought the rights to AAC and that's the reason why only ipods are allowed to play them."
Wrong again. Apple hasn't "bought the rights to AAC". There are several other companies/groups out there working on their own MPEG-4 encoders. (But to give credit where it's due, Apple's is best.) iPods aren't the only things allowed to play AAC. The fact that nothing else plays AAC is because AAC is not popular enough to be worthwhile to support.
whatever
by yangman88 - 12/15/05 11:19 AM In reply to: Wrong byyou get my gist tho, AAC is still the better choice for the amount of space you want to take up. But, isn't apple the only company that has the rite to call thier encoding AAC? I'm pretty sure i read that somewhere...
Btw, wow where did u get all this stuff? That's creeping me out how much u focus on this stuff. Do u work with mp3 players for a living?
Re: Whatever
by - 12/18/05 4:21 AM In reply to: whatever by yangman88"you get my gist tho, AAC is still the better choice for the amount of space you want to take up."
Yeah, I just hope they get the kinks out of it. Right now there are a plenty of "problem samples" which trip up AAC I think.
"But, isn't apple the only company that has the rite to call thier encoding AAC?"
Nope. AAC stands for "Advanced Audio Coding". I think it was coined by MPEG. By the way, there's also AVC, which stands for Advanced Video Coding, and includes H.264 among other methods.
"Btw, wow where did u get all this stuff?"
Here and there. I guess you could call me an MP3 hobbyist. I visit some MP3-related forums (including this one), I poke around manufacturers' sites, online stores review sites, etc.
"That's creeping me out how much u focus on this stuff. Do u work with mp3 players for a living?"
Nah, but I've got a degree in Electronics and if I don't find some good work soon I might seriously do that.
You got me thinking, what is with my near-obsession with MP3?... Well I guess it started with Napster and the allure of getting any song I wanted without having to pay for it. Eventually I could tell the difference between most of the MP3's out there at the time and the CD's, so I set out to find the best way to make my own MP3's. I guess it just kinda snowballed from there. I just can't seem to stop wanting to pick up, use and share more information.
Thanks for the WRONGS!!
by solarmanjamz - 1/5/06 7:23 PM In reply to: Re: Whatever byNice post.
I am an audio engineer and systems integrator. I read posts like this all the time and it always baffles me that no one talks about the quality of the source material. So I have to say something. DUH! ever heard of GI/GO?? Even if you are compressing a store bought CD doesn't mean ANYTHING except the 44.1 blah blah. And also test how good your ears are! Everyones are different. Just because of the format or bitrate doesn't mean YOU will tell the difference. (some will of course) I just compressed ''Master of Reality'' for example. Unless it's remastered, (by you preferably) it's going to sound just as crappy as it origionaly did, no matter the bit rate. Of course there has been a huge difference in technology since then, but consider today's music. Some are produced masterfully, but most are noisy crap right from the studio. UR right about storage and MP3, personally the way storage is going I will probably revert to .wav. Consider the source, the quality, and if it's good, go to 192 MP3 and that should about do it. Just my 2 cents. I'm not going to get into it, but screw AAC.
AAC not only for iPods
by Galley - 1/5/06 5:29 PM In reply to: AAC for all by yangman88RealPlayer has ripped CDs as .m4a AAC files by default for some time. RealAudio 10 is also AAC. All of the files in the RealPlayer Music Store are 192Kbps RealAudio 10 AAC. I also feel that RealPlayer 10.5's AAC encoder is just a TAD better than iTunes'.
Many car stereos will now play AAC files, as do some cell phones. I can store (and play) 4GB of .m4a AAC or RealAudio 10 AAC files on my Palm LifeDrive. All PalmOS 5 devices support the RealPlayer Music Store.
Get your fact straight, please. AAC is everywhere! 
MP3
by alext - 12/16/05 5:16 AM In reply to: AAC bynkren is right. AAC and WMA have much better sound quality at low bit rates. By the time you get up to 192kbps there is very little difference and which is best is arguable. With memory prices dropping the way they are I don't see why anyone would want to encode at any less than this (many people encode at 320 kbps). Stick with MP3 (use the LAME VBR encoder) and you can be sure your music will work on any device you choose in the future. Personally, I'm in the process of reripping everything to FLAC (true lossless quality, 65% of the size) ready for when I get my iAudio U3 in the new year.
Quality Alone versus Popularity
by ciggieoxo - 12/17/05 11:51 PM In reply to: AAC or MP3 by glasshole2The question is about quality but ''popularity'' will need to be a factor too.
People chosing to use another protocol such as AAC will be very lonely.
With all the MP3 players purchased is not a question of quality. The popularity of MP3 hardware and software is so overwheming that most people will not charge to another protocol.
Simply too much money is already invested in MP3 so it is unlikely another protocol will take over.
Agreed. It's also about universal playability
by IndustryVet - 1/12/06 1:50 PM In reply to: Quality Alone versus Popularity by ciggieoxoGood luck finding a DVD player that plays AAC and there are fewer car players also.
People overlook the other elements of any sound system also: the headphones/speakers and environment are just as important, and often moreso, than the quality of the compression format.
For example, in all but the most quiet of Mercede's Benz's (assuming you believe the commercial) good luck hearing all the details of even the best quality recording while road and outside noise impacts the environment.
Then there's your ears and the speakers/headphones. Everyone's ears are different and are able to appreciate a quality reproduction less and less with age as frequency range sensitivity decreases (40 +/- seems to be an increased time of decline setting in). Finally the speakers may or may not accurately represent even what the player is sending out. So, we have ear buds that can't handle bass (though getting better with closed designs).
The bottom line often on sound is too often what a spec tells anyone. As a major retailer of audio systems for a decade, I know that the most important part is what you perceive you as an individual are hearing and whether it sounds good, or good enough, to you. Nothing else matters.
Better off to go with the universality of MP3, determine the compression rate that satisfies your hearing and reap the benefits of a wider standard: more players with more features avaialable.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
