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: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: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.
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: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.