MP3, WMA, or AAC ??
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?
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?
0
Comments
My number one gripe so far with iTunes: NO OGG SUPPORT! CRAPOLA!
I'm trying to decide if I should convert my music library.
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.
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??
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.
That was my point.
Why even give you the option if it can't possibly be better than what it's converting?
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
Its an outrage!
As for AAC or WMA well keep the comments coming as I've still to make up my mind!
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)
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?
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.
I'm not a lab though.... and dislike tests...
NS
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
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.
I encode all my music with LAME --alt-preset standard, sounds perfect, and yet still has decent compression compared to higher CBR files.
NS
APS - 5,679 KB
OGG n/h - 5,597 KB
OGG high - 12,510 KB
Now try a 64Kbps audio track for both.....
NS
NS
NS