how do you rate AAC against MP3 ?

Ocean Moves · 18 Jan 2006, 01:12

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/aac/

comments please

Dark · 18 Jan 2006, 08:17

AAC compressed audio at 128 Kbps (stereo) has been judged by expert listeners to be â€œindistinguishableâ€� from the original uncompressed audio source.

I doubt that. A lot.

Because of its incredible quality at a wide range of data rates and ratification as an industry standard, AAC audio is gaining wide adoption in the marketplace. For example, all of the music sold in the iTunes Music Store uses AAC, for playback on desktop or iPod.

Of course it bloody is, they're all Apple products/services. And I hardly think that just because iTunes uses AAC, that counts as "wide adoption in the marketplace".

Or perhaps I'm biased. Either way:

to Apple.

aims · 18 Jan 2006, 08:24

Ogg > Everything Else

Izzy HaveMercy · 18 Jan 2006, 11:20

Motz wrote:Ogg > Everything Else

Not in quality of compression, I might add

But Ogg is free and open source.

The best of the worst, IMO are the programs using LAME-encoding.

Still, nothing better than the real thing

IZ.

18 Jan 2006, 11:44

This is one case where I'm not going to stand up for Apple. They're just trying to bully you into buying an iPod as the only (?) mp3 player that will play their proprietary files.

IIRC iTunes now supports FLAC playback (but I wouldn't trust its encoder) but I'm not sure whether iPod does.

Obviousman · 18 Jan 2006, 11:59

markfiend wrote:IIRC iTunes now supports FLAC playback (but I wouldn't trust its encoder) but I'm not sure whether iPod does.

Don't think mine does, but I'll give it a try (and ask a friend of mine who has one of these fancy video ones if his does). I'll get back to you on this one later today!

18 Jan 2006, 12:36

I don't think mine does either

but I can't be bothered filling up the HD with FLACs when mp3s are adequate for listening through headphones.

Ocean Moves · 18 Jan 2006, 12:48

markfiend wrote:I don't think mine does either but I can't be bothered filling up the HD with FLACs when mp3s are adequate for listening through headphones.

I have "one of those" 60gb video ipod... I don't know what FLAC is,
but from what I've heard on here, I'll be sticking to <>192-256 MP3
I think.

Currently using Anapod for sync duties, and Nero Recode 2
to recode videos/tv series etc. to play as Mpeg4 on ipod
(avoiding all of Apple's delightful software)

mik · 18 Jan 2006, 15:31

I'm looking at getting an iPod video 60GB principally to act as a "jukebox" so I can get all my CD's out of the way of the tinies and their jammy little mitts.

The iPod is the only mp3 player around that has a decent docking station which I can have permanently wired up to the amp rather than having a line in from the headphone socket.

Plus the new dock has an IR remote and can connect into my telly for video playback and photo album duties.

Regardless of whether it's the 'best' player or whatnot, it's the only one that can do all this.

However....

Until now I've been using MusicMatch as my pc based media player / ripper and despite having half a terabyte of disk space on 'Marvin' I'd been ripping tunes to disc in mp3Pro format; 2,500 cd's 14,000 tracks so far, many of which may have inadvertently 'escaped' over the internet onto other peoples puters for which I can only apologise

Except the iPod (and just about every other mp3 player for that matter,) is only capable of playing the base encrypted part @ 64kbps or 's**t quality' as it is otherwise known

Code: Select all

&#91;b&#93;Why does a plain mp3 player show 22.05 kHz sampling rate instead of 44.1 kHz when playing an mp3PRO file encoded at 64 kbps? 
Why does the mp3PRO player show 22.05 kHz sampling rate instead of 44.1 kHz when PRO is switched off?&#91;/b&#93;

The mp3PRO bit stream includes two streams. One of the two streams carries the mp3 information for the low frequencies below 10 kHz. To reach the highest quality at the low data rates a sampling frequency of 22.05 kHz is used for the mp3 stream &#40;like most mp3 encoders also do&#41;. A standard mp3 player using only the mp3 bit stream therefore shows a sampling rate of 22.05 kHz.
Switching off the PRO option at the Thomson Demo mp3PRO Player/Encoder converts the mp3PRO player into a standard mp3 player. The player then only decodes the mp3 bit stream and displays the sampling rate used for mp3 part of the bit stream.

Whilst I can do a bulk convert from mp3Pro to mp3 this is like taping a tape so you lose quality.

Given that I'm going to have to dig all those ripped and vac-pacced cd's out of the loft to re-rip them I was debating which format to rip them in; mp3 or AAC, and at what bit rate or whether to use VBR.

I'm quite relieved that I hadn't started on the long and convoluted process of transferring my vinyl.....

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Thanks

Ocean Moves · 18 Jan 2006, 15:46

mik wrote:I'm looking at getting an iPod video 60GB principally to act as a "jukebox" so I can get all my CD's out of the way of the tinies and their jammy little mitts.

The iPod is the only mp3 player around that has a decent docking station which I can have permanently wired up to the amp rather than having a line in from the headphone socket.

Plus the new dock has an IR remote and can connect into my telly for video playback and photo album duties.

Regardless of whether it's the 'best' player or whatnot, it's the only one that can do all this.

However....

Until now I've been using MusicMatch as my pc based media player / ripper and despite having half a terabyte of disk space on 'Marvin' I'd been ripping tunes to disc in mp3Pro format; 2,500 cd's 14,000 tracks so far, many of which may have inadvertently 'escaped' over the internet onto other peoples puters for which I can only apologise

Except the iPod (and just about every other mp3 player for that matter,) is only capable of playing the base encrypted part @ 64kbps or 's**t quality' as it is otherwise known
Code: Select all
&#91;b&#93;Why does a plain mp3 player show 22.05 kHz sampling rate instead of 44.1 kHz when playing an mp3PRO file encoded at 64 kbps? 
Why does the mp3PRO player show 22.05 kHz sampling rate instead of 44.1 kHz when PRO is switched off?&#91;/b&#93;

The mp3PRO bit stream includes two streams. One of the two streams carries the mp3 information for the low frequencies below 10 kHz. To reach the highest quality at the low data rates a sampling frequency of 22.05 kHz is used for the mp3 stream &#40;like most mp3 encoders also do&#41;. A standard mp3 player using only the mp3 bit stream therefore shows a sampling rate of 22.05 kHz.
Switching off the PRO option at the Thomson Demo mp3PRO Player/Encoder converts the mp3PRO player into a standard mp3 player. The player then only decodes the mp3 bit stream and displays the sampling rate used for mp3 part of the bit stream.
Whilst I can do a bulk convert from mp3Pro to mp3 this is like taping a tape so you lose quality.

Given that I'm going to have to dig all those ripped and vac-pacced cd's out of the loft to re-rip them I was debating which format to rip them in; mp3 or AAC, and at what bit rate or whether to use VBR.

I'm quite relieved that I hadn't started on the long and convoluted process of transferring my vinyl.....
Thoughts? Suggestions?

Thanks

I'm no expert on all this, but I will say this;

Ipod is a wonderful portable device for music, video and photos
ON THE MOVE. Im sure apple will have you believe that its
just as good as a means of playing your videos into your tv,
and your photos, and your music into your hfi. BUT:
(1) Music : the ipod is not quality hifi: my 40 quid sony cd/mp3 walkman
has better sound quality than my 60gb ipod
(I've listened to them both on a pair of Grado headphones)
-If you want hifi sound, use hifi components.
(why do you think a hifi cd player costs 250 quid?)
(2) Video: Play ipod 320x240 mpeg4 into your own tv in your own home???
why? It will not look or sound as good as your dvd player. period.
(3) photos: this might be ok, but in any case, why not just look at
them on your PC ?
From what people said here, doesnt sound like AAC is likely to have
universal appeal any time soon...hence you could end up taking
the wrappers off your cds again!

Izzy HaveMercy · 18 Jan 2006, 16:38

Always be aware that we are talking compressed audio and data here.

Simply put, you CANNOT have the same quality MP3 as is your original audioCD, only when you rip it to cd-quality (which makes it as big as the original file, so what's the point?)

The only thing that can do this is the so-called lossless formats (FLAC being used a lot, and discussed here on HL already, but APE is another one), but they are not so wide-spread as it is a fairly new technique. Also, it is not really lossless, you have a re-arranging of zeroes and ones, and it affects the music slightly (you cannot hear it in normal circumstances, that's for sure, but it shows on a spectrometre and can be a nuisance when you want to edit such files)

Beware of MP3Pro. I don't know HOW it fecks up everything I encode with it, but it DOES.

Also a small reminder that it is somewhat of a contradiction to discuss the best quality compressed file, or the best apparatus to play it with. Using a 200 quid player to play 128kbps encoded MP3s is like putting a Hyundai-motor inside a Ferrari, IMO

But I'm a bit biased, since I never liked MP3, and I only see its value for its use on the Internet as a faster way to catch a glimpse at music you want to get to know, for example...

IZ.

mik · 18 Jan 2006, 16:41

Ocean Moves wrote:I'm no expert on all this, but I will say this;
(1) Music : the ipod is not quality hifi: my 40 quid sony cd/mp3 walkman has better sound quality than my 60gb ipod (I've listened to them both on a pair of Grado headphones) - If you want hifi sound, use hifi components.
(why do you think a hifi cd player costs 250 quid?)

I've got a full 'rack' of hifi separates, including a now pretty much redundant analogue dual tape deck and also a MiniDisc player and a CD player which doesn't get much use as the DVD player plays SACD and DVD/CD hybrid 5.1 discs....
Now, you're not going to tell me that a high bit rate digitally encoded copy played from an iPod or a PC is worse quality than an old audio cassette, with or without Dolby I, II, B or C!!!!
I had gone some way into copying stuff onto MiniDiscs but you have to make recordings in real time, which is time I just don't have, and you're replacing something which is cluttering up space withe something smaller cluttering up a little less space...
The available disc space on Marvin means that whilst lossless format isn't impossible its not really worth doing for the iPod, and the reality of the high end encodings in MP3 or AAC are going to be good enough given the type of music it's used for, eg not classical. There are very little nuances to be lost in a track like Discharge's "Two Monstrous Nuclear Stockpiles"

Ocean Moves wrote:(2) Video: Play ipod 320x240 mpeg4 into your own tv in your own home??? why? It will not look or sound as good as your dvd player. period.

I wouldn't use this function to do anything other than the odd quicktimed video clip of the tiny tearaways captured from my camera or digi camcorder; certainly wouldn't be watching Lord of the Rings of it

Ocean Moves wrote:(3) photos: this might be ok, but in any case, why not just look at them on your PC ?

Because it's not particularly convenient. My 'puters are in a fairly small room which is fine for me but not so good if you're showing off your holiday snaps to the outlaws for instance.
Photos and video aren't the primary purpose of having the iPod but the fact that you can do this marks it apart from the competition.

Ocean Moves wrote:From what people said here, doesnt sound like AAC is likely to have universal appeal any time soon...hence you could end up taking the wrappers off your cds again!

I think pretty much the same thing can be said about Microsofts WMA format, which comes back to the original question: Which is the better file format?
If the only thing I need it to work on is my iPod and my PC's (and I also have an Apple PowerBook laptop....) can handle it, it makes no real difference.
I hear that AAC is 'better' than MP3 in terms of audio quality but the file size is bigger as a result.
But...
MP3 is "universal" so I'd be able move the files around freely between all manner of devices.
So: should I re-rip in AAC or MP3?

18 Jan 2006, 17:18

Mik: I'd go for mp3, if only for the greater cross-platform compatibility.

As an aside, your hi-fi set-up sounds as mad as mine. At one point I was considering asking Richer Sounds for a loyalty card.

Do you also have a stockpile of spare cable, interconnects, RCA couplers, etc. etc. etc?

Izzy HaveMercy · 18 Jan 2006, 17:46

markfiend wrote: Do you also have a stockpile of spare cable, interconnects, RCA couplers, etc. etc. etc?

Yup.

And I still use them every day!

IZ.

Dark · 18 Jan 2006, 18:01

I need to get a Minidisc player. My mp3 player is next to kaputt from overuse, so I'll need a replacement for next week's Art exams (I don't want to have to hold the headphone jack in at JUST the right angle to get a stereo (or indeed ANY) signal, whilst I'm painting).

Obviousman · 18 Jan 2006, 20:24

Ocean Moves wrote:I'm no expert on all this, but I will say this;

Ipod is a wonderful portable device for music, video and photos
ON THE MOVE. Im sure apple will have you believe that its
just as good as a means of playing your videos into your tv,
and your photos, and your music into your hfi. BUT:
(1) Music : the ipod is not quality hifi: my 40 quid sony cd/mp3 walkman
has better sound quality than my 60gb ipod
(I've listened to them both on a pair of Grado headphones)
-If you want hifi sound, use hifi components.
(why do you think a hifi cd player costs 250 quid?)
(2) Video: Play ipod 320x240 mpeg4 into your own tv in your own home???
why? It will not look or sound as good as your dvd player. period.
(3) photos: this might be ok, but in any case, why not just look at
them on your PC ?
From what people said here, doesnt sound like AAC is likely to have
universal appeal any time soon...hence you could end up taking
the wrappers off your cds again!

Well, as you said, it's great for use on the move. I upload all my pics to it, plug the iPod into its socket, SVideo, et voilÃ . You even can show them as a slideshow with a nice bit of background music

Better than a photo album, IMHO

And it's just nicer to put everyone around your TV in the couch instead of standing up around your PC

Of course with movies on it you won't get all the surround stuff, but as my friend tells me, you can set it to take movies at original size instead of 320x240 (as you can for pictures). So that's perfectly doable as well.

And it's obvious MP3 quality is lossless, even on these iThingies, but I can't possibly imagine it will be that bad, you will not have to be listening to pish poor quality stuff (except when the song is pish poor

)

The only add-on I definately want to get (if they still make it) is the Onkyo dock, so I can have the music transfered properly to my bedroom stereo

James Blast · 18 Jan 2006, 20:36

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:
markfiend wrote: Do you also have a stockpile of spare cable, interconnects, RCA couplers, etc. etc. etc?
Yup.

I've got a box full of 5 pin din plugs and AppleTalk cables

mik · 19 Jan 2006, 09:40

markfiend wrote:Mik: I'd go for mp3, if only for the greater cross-platform compatibility.

As an aside, your hi-fi set-up sounds as mad as mine. At one point I was considering asking Richer Sounds for a loyalty card. Do you also have a stockpile of spare cable, interconnects, RCA couplers, etc. etc. etc?

Aye; in the garage.....
When we moved into the house we're in now I pulled up floorboards to stick all the speaker cabling etc neatly away before putting down the laminate flooring, and made up a load of custom length interconnects so it's all very neat

Unless your darling children feed CD's down the back of the racks meaning you have to pull the whole damn lot out which unplugs every damn thing

I was thinking some more about the whole 'quality' thing in respect of 'proper' hi-fi and it occurs to me that "people" are quite happy to have a media centre pc for storing and listening to ripped music but that this becomes an issue plugging a mp3 player into a hifi amp? Which doesn't add up; if the quality is 'good enough' its 'good enough' isn't it?

I think I'll go for AAC for the improved quality but mainly just to annoy everyone

Oh, and since the original linked article was quoting Dolby Labs as saying that AAC was 'virtually indistinguisable' then I think that stands up a bit better than a personal anecdote, no offence meant to anyone but I doubt your tests were replicable under lab conditions...

Later, pop kids...

Ocean Moves · 19 Jan 2006, 13:24

I wouldnt take apples promotion as gospel..they're bound to big it up..
have a hunt round the web and get a more balanced opinion of AAC.

as for hifi/ipod etc... i think the worlds gone abit crazy over
audio quantity and forgotten about quality for the time being....
thanks to the 'revolution' of the portable mass storage audio device.
I imagine in several years people will look at articles on people
docking their ipods to their hifis (full of 128 kbps mp3) and have
a chuckle..

19 Jan 2006, 14:22

Well, yeah, but by that time people will have multi-terabyte hard drives (what's the next prefix up from tera? is it Exa? ... No, I looked it up: according to Wiki it's peta) with 5.1 lossless audio encoded on them hooked up to their hifis.

hallucienate · 19 Jan 2006, 14:29

markfiend wrote:Well, yeah, but by that time people will have multi-terabyte hard drives (what's the next prefix up from tera? is it Exa? ... No, I looked it up: according to Wiki it's peta) with 5.1 lossless audio encoded on them hooked up to their hifis.

can't blimming wait

19 Jan 2006, 14:40

Geek

Izzy HaveMercy · 19 Jan 2006, 14:43

Make that 9.1 lossless

IZ.

Dark · 19 Jan 2006, 14:51

Excellent.

mik · 19 Jan 2006, 16:33

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:Make that 9.1 lossless

IZ.

Ha! 10.2 is already with us! See here or here

I demand 48.4 at the very least!!!