A new app released today. Since MP4 is supposed to be twice the quality, would an MP3 converted to a MP4 at half the bitrate sound the same? Anyone converted MP3 to MP4 yet?
I have converted most of my MP3's using Apple's "Convert Selection to AAC" in iTunes. Why would I pay $15 US for that app when I can use iTunes for free and can not tell the difference in quality.
I have converted most of my MP3's using Apple's "Convert Selection to AAC" in iTunes. Why would I pay $15 US for that app when I can use iTunes for free and can not tell the difference in quality.
Because AAChoo uses a better-quality encoder than iTunes.
I found another use for AAChoo. Rather than converting your CDs to mp3 and then ACC, you can use AAChoo's better-quality encoder and drop AIFFs onto it. The resulting files are in .m4a format. I dropped a 37.5 meg AIFF onto AAChoo and got a 3.4 meg file back.
Why is the encoder better? Are there even better ones besides Sorenson or whatever?
I cannot tell you why because I do not know. All I can tell you is that ACChoo's FAQ page states:
-------------------
Q: What are Ovolab AAChoo's advantages over iTunes?
A: Besides its ease of use and batch processing functionality, Ovolab AAChoo rips music using a better-quality encoding process, still relying on QuickTime 6. Apparently, iTunes' encoding is lower-quality than Ovolab AAChoo's "High" encoder quality setting.
-------------------
Looks like we need to ask Apple to give us that "better-quality encoding" in iTunes itself. That better-quality encoder must be what Apple uses in the iTunes Music Store.
Because AAChoo uses a better-quality encoder than iTunes.
And you know this because their marketing department told you so? As I have been telling people, only you (with your own ears/quipment/source material) can best determine what is best for you. Don't let others influce you.
Quote:
Originally posted by ginopiazza49
I found another use for AAChoo. Rather than converting your CDs to mp3 and then ACC, you can use AAChoo's better-quality encoder and drop AIFFs onto it. The resulting files are in .m4a format. I dropped a 37.5 meg AIFF onto AAChoo and got a 3.4 meg file back.
How is this better or different than just use rip from CD to AAC?
And you know this because their marketing department told you so? As I have been telling people, only you (with your own ears/quipment/source material) can best determine what is best for you. Don't let others influce you.
Yes, you are right, however, I do not see why OvoLab would lie, or rather discolor the truth. I wonder if they could even make that claim of "better-quality encoding than iTunes" without being sued by Apple if it were not true.
Quote:
Originally posted by klinux
How is this better or different than just use rip from CD to AAC?
Well, if AAChoo is in fact using a better quality encoder, then you will get better sounding ACC files.
I do not see why OvoLab would lie, or rather discolor the truth.
The same reason why MS (WMA), Real (RA), Xiph (Ogg Vorbis), Sony (ATRAC), and Thompson (MP3Pro) all claim that they have the best sounding codec.
To be fair, maybe AAChoo IS right and they did something no one thought of, not likely but with something so objective it is hard to be 100% conclusive. My point still remains that only yourself can the judge of what is the right codec/bit rate for you rather someone, be they individuals or companies, else.
Apparently, iTunes' encoding is lower-quality than Ovolab AAChoo's "High" encoder quality setting.
Apparently? Is it really apparent though? When using the word 'apparently', that says to me that they lack any sort of scientific proof, and I conjure images of them betting the bank on Red 27 in Vegas....
The same reason why MS (WMA), Real (RA), Xiph (Ogg Vorbis), Sony (ATRAC), and Thompson (MP3Pro) all claim that they have the best sounding codec.
To be fair, maybe AAChoo IS right and they did something no one thought of, not likely but with something so objective it is hard to be 100% conclusive. My point still remains that only yourself can the judge of what is the right codec/bit rate for you rather someone, be they individuals or companies, else.
I totally realize what you are saying when you say, "only you can be the judge of what sounds best to you." I totally agree with you there. As for ACChoo, I guess the best thing to do is wait for one of those major reviewers who has the resources (MacWorld, MacAddict, etc.) and see what they find regarding the quality of ACChoo's encorder (is it better than iTunes encorder?).
This is my understanding, which fits with all this thread's speculations:
The AAC encoder which is built-in to QT 6.2 can enocde at varying "qualities." Let's say, ranging from "low" to "high." This encoder setting is separate from the encoder's output bitrate setting. The bitrate is how much data, per second, the encoder is allowed to create while encoding a track. More data per second gives you higher quality, but it isn't the only quality factor. If the encoder can spend more time working on the encoding of the track, it can do a better job of encoding and, thus, give you more quality. iTunes apparently uses QT's encoder at a lower quality setting so that the encoding will go faster. If you use QT's encoder directly, you can choose the quality setting - this is probably what AAChoo is doing.
But just to make things complicated again, I'll bring up that AAC refers only to the audio compression, whereas MP4 refers to both the audio and video. You can make MPEG-4 movies that play with an MPEG-4 video and audio tracks, and I believe the audio track is the same as AAC.
Is this true? I'm pretty sure it is but I don't really know.
Comments
Originally posted by Mac OS X Addict
I have converted most of my MP3's using Apple's "Convert Selection to AAC" in iTunes. Why would I pay $15 US for that app when I can use iTunes for free and can not tell the difference in quality.
Because AAChoo uses a better-quality encoder than iTunes.
I found another use for AAChoo. Rather than converting your CDs to mp3 and then ACC, you can use AAChoo's better-quality encoder and drop AIFFs onto it. The resulting files are in .m4a format. I dropped a 37.5 meg AIFF onto AAChoo and got a 3.4 meg file back.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Why is the encoder better? Are there even better ones besides Sorenson or whatever?
I cannot tell you why because I do not know. All I can tell you is that ACChoo's FAQ page states:
-------------------
Q: What are Ovolab AAChoo's advantages over iTunes?
A: Besides its ease of use and batch processing functionality, Ovolab AAChoo rips music using a better-quality encoding process, still relying on QuickTime 6. Apparently, iTunes' encoding is lower-quality than Ovolab AAChoo's "High" encoder quality setting.
-------------------
Looks like we need to ask Apple to give us that "better-quality encoding" in iTunes itself. That better-quality encoder must be what Apple uses in the iTunes Music Store.
Originally posted by ginopiazza49
Because AAChoo uses a better-quality encoder than iTunes.
And you know this because their marketing department told you so? As I have been telling people, only you (with your own ears/quipment/source material) can best determine what is best for you. Don't let others influce you.
Originally posted by ginopiazza49
I found another use for AAChoo. Rather than converting your CDs to mp3 and then ACC, you can use AAChoo's better-quality encoder and drop AIFFs onto it. The resulting files are in .m4a format. I dropped a 37.5 meg AIFF onto AAChoo and got a 3.4 meg file back.
How is this better or different than just use rip from CD to AAC?
Plus, how can their AAC codec be better if they are still using Quicktime 6? Someone care to explain?
Originally posted by klinux
And you know this because their marketing department told you so? As I have been telling people, only you (with your own ears/quipment/source material) can best determine what is best for you. Don't let others influce you.
Yes, you are right, however, I do not see why OvoLab would lie, or rather discolor the truth. I wonder if they could even make that claim of "better-quality encoding than iTunes" without being sued by Apple if it were not true.
Originally posted by klinux
How is this better or different than just use rip from CD to AAC?
Well, if AAChoo is in fact using a better quality encoder, then you will get better sounding ACC files.
Is AAC the same as MP4, but by a different name?
</Ebby's stupid, ignorant question for the day>
Originally posted by Ebby
<Ebby's stupid, ignorant question for the day>
Is AAC the same as MP4, but by a different name?
</Ebby's stupid, ignorant question for the day>
Yes, Ebby.
Originally posted by ginopiazza49
I do not see why OvoLab would lie, or rather discolor the truth.
The same reason why MS (WMA), Real (RA), Xiph (Ogg Vorbis), Sony (ATRAC), and Thompson (MP3Pro) all claim that they have the best sounding codec.
To be fair, maybe AAChoo IS right and they did something no one thought of, not likely but with something so objective it is hard to be 100% conclusive. My point still remains that only yourself can the judge of what is the right codec/bit rate for you rather someone, be they individuals or companies, else.
Originally posted by ginopiazza49
Apparently, iTunes' encoding is lower-quality than Ovolab AAChoo's "High" encoder quality setting.
Apparently? Is it really apparent though? When using the word 'apparently', that says to me that they lack any sort of scientific proof, and I conjure images of them betting the bank on Red 27 in Vegas....
Originally posted by klinux
The same reason why MS (WMA), Real (RA), Xiph (Ogg Vorbis), Sony (ATRAC), and Thompson (MP3Pro) all claim that they have the best sounding codec.
To be fair, maybe AAChoo IS right and they did something no one thought of, not likely but with something so objective it is hard to be 100% conclusive. My point still remains that only yourself can the judge of what is the right codec/bit rate for you rather someone, be they individuals or companies, else.
I totally realize what you are saying when you say, "only you can be the judge of what sounds best to you." I totally agree with you there. As for ACChoo, I guess the best thing to do is wait for one of those major reviewers who has the resources (MacWorld, MacAddict, etc.) and see what they find regarding the quality of ACChoo's encorder (is it better than iTunes encorder?).
The AAC encoder which is built-in to QT 6.2 can enocde at varying "qualities." Let's say, ranging from "low" to "high." This encoder setting is separate from the encoder's output bitrate setting. The bitrate is how much data, per second, the encoder is allowed to create while encoding a track. More data per second gives you higher quality, but it isn't the only quality factor. If the encoder can spend more time working on the encoding of the track, it can do a better job of encoding and, thus, give you more quality. iTunes apparently uses QT's encoder at a lower quality setting so that the encoding will go faster. If you use QT's encoder directly, you can choose the quality setting - this is probably what AAChoo is doing.
Originally posted by ginopiazza49
Yes, Ebby.
But just to make things complicated again, I'll bring up that AAC refers only to the audio compression, whereas MP4 refers to both the audio and video. You can make MPEG-4 movies that play with an MPEG-4 video and audio tracks, and I believe the audio track is the same as AAC.
Is this true? I'm pretty sure it is but I don't really know.