Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: AAC vs MP3 questions (Read 8571 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AAC vs MP3 questions

Hi, i've some questions regarding the AAC format (I'm using the latest iTunes):
1) at the same bitrate (i'm using 192 VBR) this codec is really better than LAME 3.97 or Ogg Vorbis Aoutv? (i've looking into the listening tests but the bitrate analyzed are 48, 64 kbit/s...)
2) is Nero AAC codec better than iTunes one?

(please do not count hardware player compatibility, file size and stereo quality in your answers)
Thank you!

AAC vs MP3 questions

Reply #1 –
At 192 kbps, most all of those codecs are going to be transparent (i.e. indistinguishable from the lossless original) save for the rare problem sample.  So with respect to quality, none can be said to be better than another.  The listening tests you mention are conducted at those lower bitrates because it is at those kbps that codecs begin to become distinguishable from the source.

AAC vs MP3 questions

Reply #2 –
Oh, OK!
I've load a song compressed in ITunes AAC 192 VBR and Lame 3.97 VBR -2 -fast in Audition just to see the differences in graphic:

(AAC up, MP3 down)
The MP3 cut high freq and is bigger than AAC... but the quality it's the same... where's the trick?

AAC vs MP3 questions

Reply #3 –
Yeah, you really won't find much of a difference (if any) at bitrates of 192kbps VBR or higher.  Listening tests are conducted at around the 128kbps VBR bitrates because that is where you can distinguish between the lossy and lossless files.  On top of that, the industry "standard" seems to be 128kbps as most portable audio players use that bitrate for their song capacity measurements.

AAC vs MP3 questions

Reply #4 –
Quote from: buddhabar on
Hi, i've some questions regarding the AAC format (I'm using the latest iTunes):
1) at the same bitrate (i'm using 192 VBR) this codec is really better than LAME 3.97 or Ogg Vorbis Aoutv? (i've looking into the listening tests but the bitrate analyzed are 48, 64 kbit/s...)
2) is Nero AAC codec better than iTunes one?

(please do not count hardware player compatibility, file size and stereo quality in your answers)
Thank you!

Some information regarding your questions could be found at SoundExpert. Though testing methodology is new and still experimental.
keeping audio clear together - soundexpert.org

AAC vs MP3 questions

Reply #5 –
Quote from: buddhabar on
The MP3 cut high freq and is bigger than AAC... but the quality it's the same... where's the trick?


No trick, just your graphs are worthless since they don't say anything about quality.

Quote
Some information regarding your questions could be found at SoundExpert.


Thats certainly debatable.

AAC vs MP3 questions

Reply #6 –
AAC even at 128k will often be better than 320k mp3 on certain transient heavy electronic sounds. MP3 has a native smearing issue. Besides this both will be pretty much transparent at 192k and will provide very good results at 128k.

AAC vs MP3 questions

Reply #7 –
for question 1, check this listening test. just take note that it's done only with classical music. and guruboolez has VERY good hearing.

AAC vs MP3 questions

Reply #8 –
Quote from: buddhabar on
Oh, OK!
I've load a song compressed in ITunes AAC 192 VBR and Lame 3.97 VBR -2 -fast in Audition just to see the differences in graphic:
(AAC up, MP3 down)
The MP3 cut high freq and is bigger than AAC... but the quality it's the same... where's the trick?

The trick is that our ear does not use FFT with linear spectral distribution. Our ears are much more complex and there are some things involved when it comes to what we hear and what not. For example Absolute threshold of hearing (ATH) and masking. It is possible to produce graphs that show approximately what our ear hears, but then again everybody hears different and it is not easy to conclude from those graphs what sounds better.