Posted by
Hemos
on from the learn-more-about-it dept.
bullitB writes "For fans of the world wide patent conspiracy's latest audio format, the latest double blind AAC encoder comparison test results are in. If nothing else, this suggests much of the complaints regarding the iTunes Music Store's lossyness might be unfounded."
Glad to see development on AAC's sound quality...especially on the free side with the vast improvement of the previously terrible quality of FAAC.
More 'useful' (although it would stir the pot a bit more) would be a comparison with the latest MP3 encoders. To stay within the AAC bubble in comparisons won't encourage people to convert (or to stay away).
-- I am Jack's witty signature line
Lossy is lossy
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
When will people realise that half the trouble with a lossy format is transcoding? Sure, AAC may sound high-quality when it's in its original format, but when you transcode it to MP3 for your MP3 player, the quality turns to shit. This is inevitably the case when dealing with lossy formats, and why I'd rather buy CDs and rip them to FLAC.
Re:Lossy is lossy
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Everybody says this, but have you actually tried it? If you're using it on an MP3 player, you're probably not playing it on your audiophile-quality (heh) stereo in a well designed listening room. You're probably either in the car or out and about, listening on cheap headphones. You won't be able to tell the difference under such conditions, especially if you encode at the highest VBR quality.
Think of it this way: AAC takes out some stuff you can't hear anyway. MP3 takes out some other stuff you can't hear. If both are done at sufficient quality, what are you left with? You still have all the stuff you could hear from the original! Of course this assumes the listening environment is not the best, as above. You probably will hear it in a pristine environment on great equipment, but then you wouldn't do any of this in that case anyway!
Bottom line, don't knock til you try it!
Re:Lossy is lossy
by
FlipmodePlaya
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Pricing the way it is, I didn't even consider an iPod when looking for a HDD based player. I decided on the Neuros (www.neurosaudio.com), and bought one Friday. I'll post a quick list of its advantages as compared to the 20GB iPod:
-Half the price, at $200 -Ogg support -Open source firmware and software, including good Linux support. -Removable HDD 'back packs', you can buy additional 20GB storage for a reasonable ~$100 -Built in FM radio reciever and broadcaster (very cool) -Hardware MP3 enocding, you can record audio from the radio or its line-in port -Longer lasting battery -etc.
The first three are huge for me, and probably a lot of Slashdot. The only major disadvantages are that it is USB 1 (upgradeable in the near future), and that it is larger (not a big deal to us large-pocketted punk whipper snappers!)...
If I had enough money for an iPod, I'd spend it on an iRiver iHP-140, Rio Karma, or maybe even a Nomad Zen Xtra 40GB player.
Audiophile opinion
by
Amiga+Lover
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I used to work for an auto electronics installer, and the most discerning fuckers would pay out the nose for single directional cable which sounded JUST that bit better.
I used to get my jollies installing the cable the wrong way round on one side. Not one of the audionerds noticed by listening.
Want to know how much flowery crap they can go on with? Take a look here. You only have to read the descriptions of a few of those turntables to realise these guys are as wacked out as alien abductees and the guy on the street corner who tells you every morning he has the FBI after him.
Re:Audiophile opinion
by
Golias
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Actually, frequent listening will make your brain better at filling in the data which isn't there. For example: watching DVDs use to bother the heck out of me whenever diffuse lighting created that "layered" effect. Now I hardly ever notice it unless it's ultra-obvious (as with 2001 or some film noir movies), or I'm actively watching for it. My mind usually just interprets it as light fading to darkness now.
The better you know a subject, the more clearly you can "see" it through a dirty window.
P.S. Most of Louis Armstrong's best stuff was recorded on very harsh-sounding "clay 78s." No matter what format you play his Hot Fives and Hot Sevens singles on, it's going to sound like mush. This is another example: People who listen to a lot of live jazz have no trouble listening through all the ticks, pops, scratches, microphone clipping, bad accoustics, etc. and in their "mind's ear" can hear just how brilliant and beautiful Armstrong's recordings are. Those who don't can barely make out a fuzzy-sounding trumpet in an echo-filled hall, and wonder what all the fuss is about.
--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:Audiophile opinion
by
SnowDog74
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
There is a certain engineering logic behind why the cables are designed that way... unidirectional grounding forces does remove line noise... but the levels of line noise in an already massively-shielded cable are so miniscule that the typical audience for these expensive cables (rich people with bad ears), can't tell the difference anyway.
I have over 24 channels of audio cabling running around my studio and I do find unidirectional grounding makes a difference... but then I'm actually recording music.
Re:I'm not a doctor, but I play one on television
by
fingerfarm
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The people who are "able to tell" just happen to have more sensitive hearing. I'm probably not one of them, but I have known several, including someone who cannot listen to CD's because there is a whine on all of them associated with the digital nature (this same guy does not like going into Radio Shack because of the noise made by their security system.)
I'm getting sick of hearing about how Jimmy the cat boy can't listen to CDs, so the rest of the Budweiser crowd has to bow down to his codec choices.
These people are either freaks who feel the need to expound their superiority at any given chance, or audiophiles who feel they're somehow making a difference by making us waste storage space.
At some point you have to choose whether you're listening to the music or the technology used to reproduce it.
Re:iTMS music does NOT sound lossy
by
iblink
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
On a moderate audiophile system (under $10K) there is a clear difference difference between an AAC encoded file downloaded from itunes (and then burned onto a CD with itunes) and an original CD. I spent the money to download songs I already owned in order to make a comparison. I do not have great sensitivity any more -- I'm 41 -- but there was no mistaking the lack of "fullness" in the AAC, particularly at the high end, with instruments such as a violin. True, my test was not double-blinded, but the difference was obvious.
That said, I continue to purchase music on itunes. I simply avoid purchasing music that is more sensitive to the encoding.
AAC vs. AAC not the issue
by
carbona
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Most of the complaints I've heard registered about the iTunes Music Store 128 Kbps format isn't that it sounds like crap compared to other AAC implementations. The major complaint is that it not only falls far behind Apple's claim that it sounds indistinguishable from the original lossless CD, but it also fails to sound even as good as MP3 with a decent encoder like LAME using --alt-preset standard or OGG at medium quality.
I understand Apple trying to keep filesizes to a minumum, but in these days of 3.0 Mbps DSL links to people's apartments and storage prices at absolutely mind-boggling low price points, their logic is becoming less and less understandable with each passing month.
AAC actually sounds like a well-developed and efficient lossy format but let's up the bitrate a bit especially when the price of a physical CD with all the artwork and liner notes along with lossless tracks and the ability to rip them to a lossy format for portable use is only a few dollars more, and in some cases the same price, than an album on the iTMS.
Re:AAC vs. AAC not the issue
by
jo_ham
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Storage space is not the issue - it's bandwidth on the server end. It might only be a small increase in file size for the consumer, but Apple's bills soon add up with that extra size.
I know they use Akami, land of the infinite bandwidth, but that doesn't mean it's free.
the comments
by
eclectic4
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"Easy Listening
Results: iTunes wins, with Nero closely behind it, more or less tied. Faac is tied with Nero, and Compaact! and Real are tied just below Faac."
"House (Electronic/Techno)
Results: iTunes and Nero tied at first place, Real and Compaact!tied with Nero, and Faac tied to Real and Compaact!."
They were like that. Did we really need a play by play? Did he think we wouldn't be able to "decipher" these "complex" graphs?
...
--
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
Re:Sounds good to me
by
MikeXpop
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I found,
for my personal preference, that 128kbps AAC was at least as good as 192kbps MP3, if not better.
This statement irks me to no end. Your wording is better than most others though as you used for your preference.
The thing to remember is that MP3 and AAC are different encodings. Comparing AAC to MP3 (to OGG to WMA...) is not like comparing MP3 algorithms. AAC will throw out different sounds that MP3 will keep, and vice versa. For example, a symbol crash sounds a lot better on an MP3 than it does on a similarly encoded AAC (I use LAME MP3s and iTunes AACs, they might sound different on others). However, vocals are clearer on AAC than MP3. I find overall AAC is superior to MP3, and that's what I have my songs as. However, saying a 192 AAC == 128 MP3 is a bit faulty. Both have their strengths and both have their weaknesses.
-- Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
Re:Sounds good to me
by
hondo77
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
. So I reripped all of my CDs to 128kbps AAC and got more songs onto my 5GB iPod.
Sounds like what I did. Then I played my iPod through my home stereo. Yikes! Now I'm re-ripping to 256 MP3. Like you said, though, it's personal preference and what you're using the files for and everybody's different.
-- I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
It's pretty apparent to me when the tracks I've encoded as AIFF come up on my playlist as opposed to my AAC ones (until there's flac AIFF is fine cuz disk space is cheap). The big tell is that the top end gets a lot more clear and articulate. I'm pretty sure that AAC has a tendency to cut off some of the higher harmonics and notes. It cuts from all ranges but these are the easiest for me to notice. That and the lack of richness in super-low lows.
Re:Minor Detail
by
bullitB
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This is unfortunately not really true. Just to quote your source,
What is the difference between a "professional" encoder or decoder product, and a "consumer" encoder or decoder product?
A professional product is purchased for commercial (i.e., revenue generating) purposes. A consumer product is purchased or made available for non-revenue generating purposes. Examples of professional products include broadcast encoders, and high-end audio or audio/video workstation applications. Professional products are typically used in a production environment or within the context of a backend distribution system. Examples of typical consumer products include jukebox products for creating a personal digital music library, portable digital music players, DVD/CD players, or television receivers.
Notice how they don't mention anything about the actual quality of the encoder? In fact, that's because there's no difference. The Pro/Consumer differentiation is a ploy they use to make commercial users pay more (perhaps because because they have the money to do so). You might notice that Microsoft does with with Student/Home versions of Office which cost 75% less than the business versions of the same code.
Re:iTMS music does NOT sound lossy
by
stux
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Slightly metalic, with a hint of a whistle and definately less bright
--
---
Live Long & Prosper \\//_
CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
Jedi & Last *-fytr
Slashdot Mirror
Glad to see development on AAC's sound quality...especially on the free side with the vast improvement of the previously terrible quality of FAAC. More 'useful' (although it would stir the pot a bit more) would be a comparison with the latest MP3 encoders. To stay within the AAC bubble in comparisons won't encourage people to convert (or to stay away).
I am Jack's witty signature line
When will people realise that half the trouble with a lossy format is transcoding? Sure, AAC may sound high-quality when it's in its original format, but when you transcode it to MP3 for your MP3 player, the quality turns to shit. This is inevitably the case when dealing with lossy formats, and why I'd rather buy CDs and rip them to FLAC.
I used to work for an auto electronics installer, and the most discerning fuckers would pay out the nose for single directional cable which sounded JUST that bit better.
I used to get my jollies installing the cable the wrong way round on one side. Not one of the audionerds noticed by listening.
Want to know how much flowery crap they can go on with? Take a look here. You only have to read the descriptions of a few of those turntables to realise these guys are as wacked out as alien abductees and the guy on the street corner who tells you every morning he has the FBI after him.
The people who are "able to tell" just happen to have more sensitive hearing. I'm probably not one of them, but I have known several, including someone who cannot listen to CD's because there is a whine on all of them associated with the digital nature (this same guy does not like going into Radio Shack because of the noise made by their security system.)
I'm getting sick of hearing about how Jimmy the cat boy can't listen to CDs, so the rest of the Budweiser crowd has to bow down to his codec choices.
These people are either freaks who feel the need to expound their superiority at any given chance, or audiophiles who feel they're somehow making a difference by making us waste storage space.
At some point you have to choose whether you're listening to the music or the technology used to reproduce it.
On a moderate audiophile system (under $10K) there is a clear difference difference between an AAC encoded file downloaded from itunes (and then burned onto a CD with itunes) and an original CD. I spent the money to download songs I already owned in order to make a comparison. I do not have great sensitivity any more -- I'm 41 -- but there was no mistaking the lack of "fullness" in the AAC, particularly at the high end, with instruments such as a violin. True, my test was not double-blinded, but the difference was obvious. That said, I continue to purchase music on itunes. I simply avoid purchasing music that is more sensitive to the encoding.
Most of the complaints I've heard registered about the iTunes Music Store 128 Kbps format isn't that it sounds like crap compared to other AAC implementations. The major complaint is that it not only falls far behind Apple's claim that it sounds indistinguishable from the original lossless CD, but it also fails to sound even as good as MP3 with a decent encoder like LAME using --alt-preset standard or OGG at medium quality.
I understand Apple trying to keep filesizes to a minumum, but in these days of 3.0 Mbps DSL links to people's apartments and storage prices at absolutely mind-boggling low price points, their logic is becoming less and less understandable with each passing month.
AAC actually sounds like a well-developed and efficient lossy format but let's up the bitrate a bit especially when the price of a physical CD with all the artwork and liner notes along with lossless tracks and the ability to rip them to a lossy format for portable use is only a few dollars more, and in some cases the same price, than an album on the iTMS.
"Easy Listening
Results: iTunes wins, with Nero closely behind it, more or less tied. Faac is tied with Nero, and Compaact! and Real are tied just below Faac."
"House (Electronic/Techno)
Results: iTunes and Nero tied at first place, Real and Compaact!tied with Nero, and Faac tied to Real and Compaact!."
They were like that. Did we really need a play by play? Did he think we wouldn't be able to "decipher" these "complex" graphs?
...
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
This statement irks me to no end. Your wording is better than most others though as you used for your preference.
The thing to remember is that MP3 and AAC are different encodings. Comparing AAC to MP3 (to OGG to WMA...) is not like comparing MP3 algorithms. AAC will throw out different sounds that MP3 will keep, and vice versa. For example, a symbol crash sounds a lot better on an MP3 than it does on a similarly encoded AAC (I use LAME MP3s and iTunes AACs, they might sound different on others). However, vocals are clearer on AAC than MP3. I find overall AAC is superior to MP3, and that's what I have my songs as. However, saying a 192 AAC == 128 MP3 is a bit faulty. Both have their strengths and both have their weaknesses.
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
. So I reripped all of my CDs to 128kbps AAC and got more songs onto my 5GB iPod.
Sounds like what I did. Then I played my iPod through my home stereo. Yikes! Now I'm re-ripping to 256 MP3. Like you said, though, it's personal preference and what you're using the files for and everybody's different.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
It's pretty apparent to me when the tracks I've encoded as AIFF come up on my playlist as opposed to my AAC ones (until there's flac AIFF is fine cuz disk space is cheap). The big tell is that the top end gets a lot more clear and articulate. I'm pretty sure that AAC has a tendency to cut off some of the higher harmonics and notes. It cuts from all ranges but these are the easiest for me to notice. That and the lack of richness in super-low lows.
Photos.
This is unfortunately not really true. Just to quote your source,
What is the difference between a "professional" encoder or decoder product, and a "consumer" encoder or decoder product?
A professional product is purchased for commercial (i.e., revenue generating) purposes. A consumer product is purchased or made available for non-revenue generating purposes. Examples of professional products include broadcast encoders, and high-end audio or audio/video workstation applications. Professional products are typically used in a production environment or within the context of a backend distribution system. Examples of typical consumer products include jukebox products for creating a personal digital music library, portable digital music players, DVD/CD players, or television receivers.
Notice how they don't mention anything about the actual quality of the encoder? In fact, that's because there's no difference. The Pro/Consumer differentiation is a ploy they use to make commercial users pay more (perhaps because because they have the money to do so). You might notice that Microsoft does with with Student/Home versions of Office which cost 75% less than the business versions of the same code.
Slightly metalic, with a hint of a whistle and definately less bright
---
Live Long & Prosper \\//_
CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
Jedi & Last *-fytr