AAC really that good?

stevegongrui

I was really excited when I was told that AAC is a much more advanced format which takes up less space for the quality of encoding. I did some encoding and I'm not sure if it's really as god as it is hyped to be:



Encoding at 128kbps, the music souunds somehow richer but at the cost of certain modifications to the music.

This is most noticeable in chlassical music endcodings. For example, piano music. The notes just sound too much on the crisp side, as if the muusic was resonating from a tin foil.



So I'd say 128 AAC sounds similar to 160 Mp3 rather than rivaling cd quality as Jobs puts it.



What do you all think? Any sound experts? I used to encode mp3 at variable bit rate a 224 kbps. what would be the AAC equivalent?



Steve.

netromac

Do we really need another AAC vs Mp3 vs CD quality thread? I think not, as there are already several threads on the subject with quite a lot of in-depht discussion on the matter, like the iTMS: Satisfied with bit-rate? thread.

hmurchison

AAC like MP3 will continue to get better as the Codec evolves. Currently right now it's still fairly new for developers. I expect to see some of the complaints about the sound diminish as the Encoder/Decoders get better. MP3 didn't sound as good as it does today in it's infancy either.

amorph

iTunes uses QuickTime's AAC encoding, which is OK. But it also uses the "fastest encoding" setting, which optimizes for time rather than quality. It's apparently possible to get better quality out of QuickTime by using the "highest quality" setting and waiting a bit longer.



Then there's the encoder Apple's using for their store, which is probably not QuickTime.

mrmister

As of 4.0.1 I believe it is no longer locked on fastest--at list, my encodes are taking a bit longer.