Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 vs AAC on iTunes
I read the archives, but assuming that one has the newest version of an iPod
(80 GB Video) and latest iTunes software (7.02), which one of these is the best quality. All music is imported from CD's MP3 - 320 kbps (stereo), VBR (highest quality setting), Sample rate (choice of 44,100 or 48,000 kHz or Auto) AAC - 256kbps (stereo), VBR, Sample rate (choice of 44,100 or 48,000 kHz or Auto) AAC - 320 kbps (stereo), No VBR, Sample rate (choice of 44,100 or 48,000 kHz, or Auto) Note that with AAC, I cannot select 320 kbps with VBR using iTunes software. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 vs AAC on iTunes
Mark A wrote:
I read the archives, but assuming that one has the newest version of an iPod (80 GB Video) and latest iTunes software (7.02), which one of these is the best quality. All music is imported from CD's MP3 - 320 kbps (stereo), VBR (highest quality setting), Sample rate (choice of 44,100 or 48,000 kHz or Auto) AAC - 256kbps (stereo), VBR, Sample rate (choice of 44,100 or 48,000 kHz or Auto) AAC - 320 kbps (stereo), No VBR, Sample rate (choice of 44,100 or 48,000 kHz, or Auto) Note that with AAC, I cannot select 320 kbps with VBR using iTunes software. I would suggest that as MP3 @ 320kbps and AAC at 256k (I understand that AAC at 192k is considered indistinguishable) and above are both indistinguishable from CD, that the question of which is better is academic. If both are "perfect", then which "perfect" is better? As 256k takes up less space than 320k, that's the one I would use. As to sample rates, as the source is CD at 44.1, there can be no benefit at using 48k, and if the sample rate conversion is not done very well, it could well sound worse. S. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 vs AAC on iTunes
"Serge Auckland" wrote ...
I would suggest that as MP3 @ 320kbps and AAC at 256k (I understand that AAC at 192k is considered indistinguishable) and above are both indistinguishable from CD, that the question of which is better is academic. If both are "perfect", then which "perfect" is better? Wow. I guess "perfect" doesn't mean what it used to. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 vs AAC on iTunes
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote ... I would suggest that as MP3 @ 320kbps and AAC at 256k (I understand that AAC at 192k is considered indistinguishable) and above are both indistinguishable from CD, that the question of which is better is academic. If both are "perfect", then which "perfect" is better? Wow. I guess "perfect" doesn't mean what it used to. I don't think the meaning has changed:- If an MP3 or AAC file is indistinguishable from the original, then audibly, the copy is perfect. There are no degrees of perfect, therefore it can't matter whether MP3 or AAC is used. If you can show that 320kbps MP3 and 256kbps AAC are *not* indistinguishable from the original, then the copy is *not* perfect, and therefore there could be a choice to be made on quality grounds. I am somewhat pedantic about the use of language - how many times has one heard on TV or radio that something is "very unique"? Either something is unique or it isn't, there are no degrees of uniqueness as there are no degrees of perfection. S. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 vs AAC on iTunes
"Serge Auckland" wrote ...
If you can show that 320kbps MP3 and 256kbps AAC are *not* indistinguishable from the original, then the copy is *not* perfect, and therefore there could be a choice to be made on quality grounds. Perhaps indistiugishsable to some. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 vs AAC on iTunes
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote ... If you can show that 320kbps MP3 and 256kbps AAC are *not* indistinguishable from the original, then the copy is *not* perfect, and therefore there could be a choice to be made on quality grounds. Perhaps indistiugishsable to some. Possibly, but the Fraunhofer Institute research I saw about 18 months ago indicated as such. S. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 vs AAC on iTunes
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
Possibly, but the Fraunhofer Institute research I saw about 18 months ago indicated as such. S. My guess is that it depends somewhat on the type of music, and depends a lot on the quality of the headphones. In my case you should assume that I might be able to hear the difference and I want to know which one is best. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 vs AAC on iTunes
Mark A wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message Possibly, but the Fraunhofer Institute research I saw about 18 months ago indicated as such. S. My guess is that it depends somewhat on the type of music, and depends a lot on the quality of the headphones. In my case you should assume that I might be able to hear the difference and I want to know which one is best. Subject to what I said earlier about the audibility of these codecs at high bit rates, My choice would be for AAC, as it is a much more modern codec, and therefore, I would assume would have fewer artifacts (audible or not)than the older MP3. Whether VBR or not VBR, I would prefer to use the higher rate and no VBR, for no better reason than additional processing has to take place for VBR. I can't give you an opinion based on audibility, as tests I've done myself show *to my ears* that 320kbps MP3 is indistinguishable from the CD original. (actually 256k is too) I use AKG K270 headphones and either Meridian or Genelec active 'speakers. I listen to a wide variety of music, jazz, classical, rock and blues, and haven't yet found a track that caught out the MP3 codec. S. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 vs AAC on iTunes
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 10:30:03 +0000, Serge Auckland
wrote: Subject to what I said earlier about the audibility of these codecs at high bit rates, My choice would be for AAC, as it is a much more modern codec, and therefore, I would assume would have fewer artifacts (audible or not)than the older MP3. Maybe. Or perhaps it merely boasts a higher compression ratio. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 vs AAC on iTunes
"Mark A" wrote in message
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message Possibly, but the Fraunhofer Institute research I saw about 18 months ago indicated as such. S. My guess is that it depends somewhat on the type of music, and depends a lot on the quality of the headphones. In my case you should assume that I might be able to hear the difference and I want to know which one is best. I'm quite certain that Fraunhofer Institute knows how to pick headphones and music that can expose the worst in any perceptual coder. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 vs AAC on iTunes
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in
message news On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 10:30:03 +0000, Serge Auckland wrote: Subject to what I said earlier about the audibility of these codecs at high bit rates, My choice would be for AAC, as it is a much more modern codec, and therefore, I would assume would have fewer artifacts (audible or not)than the older MP3. Maybe. Or perhaps it merely boasts a higher compression ratio. There is a relationship between the two. The coder that performs as well with higher compression is likely (within bounds) to peform better with the same compression. This can be a bounded effect because it seems like a given coder strategy performs well over only a limited range of compression ratios. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 vs AAC on iTunes
"Mark A" wrote in message . .. I read the archives, but assuming that one has the newest version of an iPod (80 GB Video) and latest iTunes software (7.02), which one of these is the best quality. All music is imported from CD's MP3 - 320 kbps (stereo), VBR (highest quality setting), Sample rate (choice of 44,100 or 48,000 kHz or Auto) AAC - 256kbps (stereo), VBR, Sample rate (choice of 44,100 or 48,000 kHz or Auto) AAC - 320 kbps (stereo), No VBR, Sample rate (choice of 44,100 or 48,000 kHz, or Auto) Note that with AAC, I cannot select 320 kbps with VBR using iTunes software. If you have nothing invested in either choice, I would recommend starting by making a blind comparison between AAC at 256k and AAC at 128k. Can you tell the difference using familiar recordings? If not (and I suspect that may be the case) try betwween AAC at 128k and 64k, &c. I would use 44.1k all the time. How do you run the test? Here's how. Choose a difficult-to-encode CD track and encode it using all the different schemes that are under consideration, and also one to wav (as a control.) Now decode each one to wav and burn them all to a CDR. What you now have is a CDR that can be played on a high quality system consisting of the same original coded in the various ways. I advise having somebody else make the CDR so that you don't know ahead of time which track is which. I've done this test more than once, and I'm always surprised at how much music can be compressed before it even sounds different--much less bad. And yes, I included subjects with lots better hearing than me. Norm Strong |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 vs AAC on iTunes
wrote in message
... If you have nothing invested in either choice, I would recommend starting by making a blind comparison between AAC at 256k and AAC at 128k. Can you tell the difference using familiar recordings? If not (and I suspect that may be the case) try betwween AAC at 128k and 64k, &c. I would use 44.1k all the time. How do you run the test? Here's how. Choose a difficult-to-encode CD track and encode it using all the different schemes that are under consideration, and also one to wav (as a control.) Now decode each one to wav and burn them all to a CDR. What you now have is a CDR that can be played on a high quality system consisting of the same original coded in the various ways. I advise having somebody else make the CDR so that you don't know ahead of time which track is which. I've done this test more than once, and I'm always surprised at how much music can be compressed before it even sounds different--much less bad. And yes, I included subjects with lots better hearing than me. Norm Strong I was given an 80 MB iPod as a gift. After loading all of my 200 CDs on the iPod at AAC 256k with VBR, I have only used about 25GB. I have no real incentive in trying to save any space by going below 256k (besides which, I have finished load all my music).. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Building a Hi-Fidelity iTunes Music Server | High End Audio | |||
iTunes and Digital Performer | Pro Audio | |||
Where does iTunes store playlists? | Pro Audio | |||
iTunes and digital jukebox on Mac G5 | Tech | |||
iTunes and digital jukebox on Mac G5 | Tech |