Encoding music
I've been doing some blindfolded analysis of different formats: 128 and 160 aac/ 128 and 160mp3/aiff at different bit rates.
I always pick out aiff as the best but...
Here's my problem:
I've been preferring mp3 over aac in almost all my tests. I even tend to choose 128 mp3 over 160 aac.
Now, I need some professional guidance because I have seen tests that say aac is way better than mp3 but what do you guys think in real life?
I find aac rather dull sounding, both 128 and 160.
I always pick out aiff as the best but...
Here's my problem:
I've been preferring mp3 over aac in almost all my tests. I even tend to choose 128 mp3 over 160 aac.
Now, I need some professional guidance because I have seen tests that say aac is way better than mp3 but what do you guys think in real life?
I find aac rather dull sounding, both 128 and 160.
Comments
The quality is much higher, and the file size is lower. Can't go wrong. If I had the HD space I would go all AIFF with my stuff, but I can't do that.
the treble is really loud and hurts my ears.
I have the Sony fontopia MDR-EX71SL
you sure about the actuall sound of aac being better? did you ever objectively blindfoldedly compare the two?
I only use .ogg (http://www.vorbis.com) when ripping CDs (which are mine and I am using the copies for personal use... yah.)
Tests prove that ogg is much better then mp3.
Edit... however you would be hard pressed to find a good digital music player that supports the format.
Originally posted by stevegongrui
I've been preferring mp3 over aac in almost all my tests. I even tend to choose 128 mp3 over 160 aac.
I have noticed that MP3s do sound better. For lack of proper terminology I will say that MP3s have a "fuller" sound. To give an analogy I will say MP3s are like big speakers and AAC like little speakers.
Originally posted by iPeon
I have noticed that MP3s do sound better. For lack of proper terminology I will say that MP3s have a "fuller" sound. To give an analogy I will say MP3s are like big speakers and AAC like little speakers.
Right on! That is exactly what I'm experiencing!
So what's going on????
AAC is not 'pristine' then?
I encode all of my music as MP3s using LAME 3.9x and its standard or extreme encoding presets, which yield VBR files around 180 and 220 Kbps, respectively. I suppose that AAC around 192 Kbps would sound decent, but I prefer to stick with what tests have proven to work well.
I'm asking about the specific options, you seem to have to put in thing like dash -128 -h or something like that.
New conventional wisdom: Yep.
Originally posted by stevegongrui
how do you use lame?
I'm asking about the specific options, you seem to have to put in thing like dash -128 -h or something like that.
The following setting will produce VBR files in the neighborhood of 170 kbps: --alt-preset standard
The following setting will produce VBR files in the neighborhood of 220 kbps:
--alt-preset extreme
Originally posted by stevegongrui
you sure about the actuall sound of aac being better? did you ever objectively blindfoldedly compare the two?
There's a little thing called Mean Square Error. AAC has a lower MSE than MP3 for the same file size. So the sound is truer to the original source, whether you like it or not.
no for real though, i have almost all .aac, and i've heard some pretty rich sound come from my ipod, through a belkin tunecast (which sucks), and into a car stereo. seriously, for something to sound decent coming from a tunecast, you know its good. i think the reason mp3's sound fuller is that you've heard that before and its called the placebo effect. i used to htink mp3s sounded better, so i had duplicates of songs and let them play randomly, i sure as hell couldnt tell the difference, but then again, i dont claim to have a miracle-ear like some of you. point is, 99.9% of iTMS users cant tell the difference, think aac is better, or dont give a shit.
anyways....
Originally posted by ipodandimac
i think the reason mp3's sound fuller is that you've heard that before and its called the placebo effect.
anyways....
Actually, yes, I was suffering from the placebo effect, but the other way around.
I had the notion that AAC was far superior (Steve Jobs convinced me in his keynote)
Moving now.
Originally posted by stevegongrui
Actually, yes, I was suffering from the placebo effect, but the other way around.
I had the notion that AAC was far superior (Steve Jobs convinced me in his keynote)
well, it works both ways--really they all sound the same.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
well, it works both ways--really they all sound the same.
Except when they don't, which is most of the time.
Originally posted by Daver
Except when they don't, which is most of the time.
alright. i'll stop trying to make a case because neither of us will budge. guess who can fit more songs on his ipod though