MP3, WMA, or AAC ??

LammypieLammypie
edited November 2003 in Internet & Media
With Apples new itunes software for the pc, we can now rip music using the new AAC standard ( MPEG4 ) which apple claim is the best for being closest to real cd quality.

Is this true, what do people reckon.

I'm not planning to re record by collection of 192kbps WMA, and the lesser collection of MP3 I own, but I thought if its better I could start using it for new cd rips.

What ya all think?

To AAC or not AAC?

Comments

  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    Well iTunes is cool in that you can convert your entire library to AAC (obviously there's no quality gain or loss, but at least you can standardize your library and get all your tags up to date). I'm going with AAC.

    My number one gripe so far with iTunes: NO OGG SUPPORT! CRAPOLA!
  • BDRBDR
    edited October 2003
    So there's no real advantage in converting 128 bit mp3's to 320 bit m4a's other than creating a library of ACC music files?

    I'm trying to decide if I should convert my music library.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    AAC is crap.

    MPEG4 is no better than MPEG3 for audio. MPEG4, in fact, has higher compression. And when you have higher compression, more is being cut from the original integrity of the file.

    Despite that, AAC sounds like it was played over a phone, broadcasted by a CB radio, and then recorded by a tape-deck and played back. Exaggeration of course, but I find it inferior to MP3, and WMA inferior to MP3 but superior to WMA. OGG and MP3 are the best compressed digital formats, in my opinion.

    //EDIT: ROFLROFLROFLLROFL. I can't believe AAC makes you upsample music to 320 kbits. Talk about wasting some ****ing space. You can't take a file that's been sampled from 192 (Assuming CD -> 128 MP3), and then recreate all the removed data + add the additional bits up to 320. It's just padding the bitstream and making the file excessively large with no increase in anything but size. Surely not quality.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    Thrax, I'm not following you... I have a pile of AAC files sitting here that are 128K
  • BDRBDR
    edited October 2003
    Thrax, it doesn't make you up it. It gives you a selection.

    I've been comparing 128 bit mp3's to the same song converted to AAC. Sorry, but I think the mp3 sounds better. (shrug)

    Maybe it's just my setup??:confused:

    Now I'm back on Music Match and listening to a 160 bit WMA music file that I bought, and it beats them both, imo.

    But that's just me. ;)
  • BDRBDR
    edited October 2003
    Thrax had this to say


    You can't take a file that's been sampled from 192 (Assuming CD -> 128 MP3), and then recreate all the removed data + add the additional bits up to 320. It's just padding the bitstream and making the file excessively large with no increase in anything but size. Surely not quality.


    That was my point.

    Why even give you the option if it can't possibly be better than what it's converting?
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    OGG = Win

    And recompressing files will always lose quality when using a lossless format, so recompressing an entire audio collection would be a really bad idea.

    NS
  • LammypieLammypie
    edited October 2003
    cool, so er yeah - My biggest gripe with itunes is that they won't sell me music cause I don't live in the US.

    Its an outrage!

    As for AAC or WMA well keep the comments coming as I've still to make up my mind!
  • SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
    edited October 2003
    http://www.short-media.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4131&highlight=wma

    My music collection is 100% MP3, not because I think it carries the best sound quality, but because it is the most widely used audio format. Also, I have so much disk space, I always record music at 224kbps, so quality is still great.

    In my opinion, and that is an opinion with not much experience of AAC, WMA is currently the best audio format around, that is with reference to its size/quality ratio.

    I however, like you said there is no point to converting all your current files, but the question is really, whether or not you want to add a third dimension to your digital audio collection.

    My personal advice, don't go out your way for AAC.

    p.s (we need to sort you out with an Avatar and a folding sig)
  • LammypieLammypie
    edited October 2003
    yeah cheers jon just make sure it isn't poncy like yours!

    Does anyone know where there are some independent lab test results comparing the difference in sound quality at high bit rates for the 3 formats. The microsoft one between MP3 and WMA is only for lower bit rates, so may not be appropriate at higher rates, and they don't compare AAC ( maybe because it is better than WMA, who knows)
  • SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
    edited October 2003
    Lammypie had this to say
    yeah cheers jon just make sure it isn't poncy like yours!

    Does anyone know where there are some independent lab test results comparing the difference in sound quality at high bit rates for the 3 formats. The microsoft one between MP3 and WMA is only for lower bit rates, so may not be appropriate at higher rates, and they don't compare AAC ( maybe because it is better than WMA, who knows)

    Poncy?:hrm:

    I imagine that the creators of each format will have their own comparisons, like you said, of different formats compared to their own, but I would hardly call those un-bias. So you'll need to really find an independant audio format review or roundup, but to be honest, I don't recall ever seeing one.

    I suggest google, be your next stop, nevertheless.
  • BDRBDR
    edited October 2003
    Hey! I'm independent, and I just compared all 3, and I think WMA wins hands down.

    :D


    I'm not a lab though.... and dislike tests...

    ;D
  • reelbigfishreelbigfish Boston, MA Member
    edited October 2003
    personally, I have all my music ripped in mp3 format with 192kbps encoding. Comparing it to a 160kbps AAC, I think the quality is better in the AAC. On my computer and iPod, there really isn't any difference between the two because the speakers just aren't that great. However, when burning a mix on a cd from mp3 at 192kbps and the same cd from AAC at 160kbps, the AAC sounds better. There is less of a tin sound when there is a lot going on in the song. Also the songs I've bought from the Apple store that are at 128kbps AAC sound pretty damn good in my car stereo when burnt to CD.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    < really huge font > OGG < / really huge font >

    NS
  • LammypieLammypie
    edited October 2003
    Yeah I would like to try OGG but it doesn't seem to be supported by enough people. If you know any OGG plugins etc for WMP, itunes, Music Match etc then let me know and I'll jump on the ogg bandwagon.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    The codec for OGG is in the Kazaa Lite codec pack.

    Other companies wont want to support it bacause they are all busy backing their own licenced proprietry formats (Apples AAC, Microsofts WMA, etc etc).

    Free software on the other hand, normally has support or plugins available, i.e. WinAMP, Codecs, etc.

    OGG is more popular than AAC and games use it too as it costs nothing for licencing as it is GPL freeware.

    NS

    EDIT: I wrote WMA rather than OGG
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    OGG is a global codec. If the program is made even remotely right, it'll pick the ogg codec upon playback.
  • maxanonmaxanon Montreal
    edited October 2003
    The best way to determine this is to rip a song three ways and listen to it. The quality of the sound is very subjective and will be different depending on the system that its being played on.

    I wouldn't re-rip everything, since the "best" format may change again in a few years. NS737 is correct in advising against re-ripping (just imagine photocopying a photocopy of a photocopy).

    If you want the best quality (for the current best file), keep a copy in wav. That way, if you re-compress you're using a better file source.
  • reelbigfishreelbigfish Boston, MA Member
    edited October 2003
    when I said re-rip all my files, I meant take everything I actually own on CD and rip them in AAC, not convert mp3 to AAC.
  • croc_croc_ New
    edited October 2003
    doesn't anyone here use VBR??? CBR is so last week. :P

    I encode all my music with LAME --alt-preset standard, sounds perfect, and yet still has decent compression compared to higher CBR files.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    OGG quality settings are all VBR. And when I am forced to use MP3 I always use 192-320Kbps at highest quality encoding methods.

    NS
  • croc_croc_ New
    edited October 2003
    yeah I can't really tell the difference between OGG and APS (--alt-preset standard) mp3, even with the amp/m-audio/sennheisers. I wonder which one has smaller files .... *runs off to find out* brb.
  • croc_croc_ New
    edited October 2003
    Ok, I'm not too familiar with OGG parameters, so I encoded in "normal/high" and the file size was nearly identical to APS. The encoding however, was faster for OGG.

    APS - 5,679 KB
    OGG n/h - 5,597 KB
    OGG high - 12,510 KB
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    croc_ had this to say
    Ok, I'm not too familiar with OGG parameters, so I encoded in "normal/high" and the file size was nearly identical to APS. The encoding however, was faster for OGG.

    APS - 5,679 KB
    OGG n/h - 5,597 KB
    OGG high - 12,510 KB

    Now try a 64Kbps audio track for both.....

    NS
  • maxanonmaxanon Montreal
    edited October 2003
    OGG rocks, too bad not a lot of people know about it.
  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited November 2003
    Hey guys, I have a couple songs itw on't allow me to convert to MP3, I DL'd "The Hobbit" Audio Book from them and I can't even listen to it on my MP3 player becuase it's an MB4(which I suppose is AAC), and won't let me convert.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited November 2003
    You need to use a third party program to convert it, such as dbpoweramp.

    NS
  • test_tube_tonytest_tube_tony Dallas TX Member
    edited November 2003
    i use mp3 format in vbr encoding. all 1,800 of my files are that way. this is mostly because i have a sony mp3-cd player. the average bitrate for the files is around 200 up to 260, yet the files are nice and small, around a 128k file's size. so if u plan on having a portable digital music player, thats how id suggest you decide.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited November 2003
    I use my PocketPC which plays anything and everything due to the software being available, so I stick with my OGG/MP3 hybrid system.

    NS
Sign In or Register to comment.