AAC with better compression??

Jump to First Reply
max powermax power
Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Read this:

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_...fm?NewsID=7973





It is interesting that NEC can further improve compression on ACC to lower kbps. I am currently ripping my CDs at ACC 160kbps using iTunes. So if Nec's audio coding is as effective as they are saying, I guess in the future I will then be able to rip my Cds at 128kbps ACC. Making it further possible to make more space for more music on my iPod.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by max power

    Read this:

    http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_...fm?NewsID=7973





    It is interesting that NEC can further improve compression on ACC to lower kbps. I am currently ripping my CDs at ACC 160kbps using iTunes. So if Nec's audio coding is as effective as they are saying, I guess in the future I will then be able to rip my Cds at 128kbps ACC. Making it further possible to make more space for more music on my iPod.





    NEC will have to explain to me how their improvements are better than the HE-AAC(High Efficiency) already available. HE-AAC also claims good quality audio at 48kbps.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 9
    thunderpoitthunderpoit Posts: 709member
    bah, id still rip at 192
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 9
    cosmocosmo Posts: 662member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ThunderPoit

    bah, id still rip at 192



    I do the same, but from what i've herad 192 ACC is no better than 192 mp3



    but i do it anyway, i guess it gives me piece of mind
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 9
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Cosmo where have you heard that? MP4 at any rate is supposed to sound twice as good, no?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 9
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    I've heard that 128 .aac sounds roughly the same as 192 .mp3



    the iTMS is all 128 .aac format...everything I get from there sounds fine to me, even out of my studio headphones.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 9
    jwri004jwri004 Posts: 626member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    Cosmo where have you heard that? MP4 at any rate is supposed to sound twice as good, no?



    I have heard it as well. AAC only shines at low rates. But that also might we disinformation spread by the MS brigade.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 9
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    I thought it was across the board all the way to 320 which is what I use sometimes, other times 192. In fact 320 and higher bit rate MP4 is always a bit bigger than 320 etc MP3.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 9
    cosmocosmo Posts: 662member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    Cosmo where have you heard that? MP4 at any rate is supposed to sound twice as good, no?



    I heard it on these boards. I think applenut mentioned it a while back when he was still around.



    i tend to doubt that it sounds twice as good because it seems to be accepted that 192 mp3s are near cd quality and 128 ACC is also near CD quality. If ACC was twice as good then i'm sure they'd mention that 96kbps ACC (rather than the 128 that is used) is near CD quality.



    Either way i'm still ripping at 192, i'm sure it can't be worse than mp3 at 192 (the format i used prior to switching over to ACC)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 9
    ipodandimacipodandimac Posts: 3,273member
    you know what, i think the bit rate difference is all a placebo effect. people know its a higher bit rate, so they think it sounds better. i understand there is a noticeable difference between uncompressed and compressed songs, but really, anything at or above 128kbps in aac sounds fine, and anyone that tells you differentjust thinks they hear small differences. honestly, would the enitre itunes music store be selling songs that sounded crappy?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.