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: WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...) (Read 28439 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

First of all sorry for my bad english.

Few years back I was using as most of us Winamp. As my music collection grows I wanted to switch to another player and what's important too I wanted to have in this program cover arts. I decided to use Foobar. Program was very difficult to me and after two months of trying to do any good modification I installed iTunes (I think it was 5 or 6 version). I had music and cover art in files. Program converted all music to AAC 128k (which is for me as good as MP3 192k - yes, I love music but I'm not an audiophile) and made nice folders, file names. I also copied music to my Xbox and what was surprising to me, there were cover arts too. Then I saw WMP11 beta. I never liked it, but this version is really beautiful IMO. In the same time came iTunes 7. It has very nice upgrade with which I can see files grouped in lists with artwork which is really nice. In the same time iTunes which was always very slow became much slower when I'm scrolling my list. And when a track is changing to another I must wait about two seconds because my computer freezes (I have a good computer, really good optimized). So I thought I could switch to WMP11. But when I imported AAC files to WMP11 I hadn't no cover art, no tags in file. I guess Microsoft doesn't like Apple and that's the reason of this bug. However I think that I could convert all of my music to WMA. But I don't know will I lose much of the quality doing AAC->WMA which was before done MP3->AAC. Is it better to me to convert from MP3->WMA? Is WMP11 downloading covers for me and changing file names and tags? And will the program be so fast even after importing much CD's? Last part of questions - what's better WMA or AAC? Or maybe WMA Pro? And how much kbps in WMA/WMA Pro will make me satisfied?

Ps. I heard that iTunes 7.0.1 is fixing problems with performance but for me scrolling of list is still slow.

I know this is a long post and my language isn't too good but I'll be glad if someone will read it and not flame me. I'm just a little girl... oh maybe not so little

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #1 –
Quote from: kissandswallow on
However I think that I could convert all of my music to WMA. But I don't know will I lose much of the quality doing AAC->WMA which was before done MP3->AAC. Is it better to me to convert from MP3->WMA? Is WMP11 downloading covers for me and changing file names and tags? And will the program be so fast even after importing much CD's?
Lossy transcoding IS BAD. Don't do that. Every time you transcode from lossy to lossy you loose more. Even if your end format is "better" than mp3, you CANNOT increase the quality, only decrease it. If you have a lot of mp3s for which you don't have the cd source, leave them as mp3.

For one thing, both iTunes and WMP are perfectly fine with a library full of mp3 files. They don't require to use AAC or WMA. You can have WMP11 put album art with your old mp3s.

Quote
Last part of questions - what's better WMA or AAC? Or maybe WMA Pro?
Most people here would prefer AAC. WMA Pro is objectively better than standard WMA but portables don't support it. I think AAC is more likely to be a format that will be easily usable 10 years from now.

Quote
And how much kbps in WMA/WMA Pro will make me satisfied?
However many it takes for you not to know the difference between WMA and the original. Do a simple blind test.

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #2 –
Let me ask to be 100% sure...
90% of my AAC files are converted from MP3s. So you're saying that I should leave alone those MP3s and don't bother to convert them, normalize their bitrate etc.? And if yes, when downloading any CD in MP3 when it's available choose 192k bitrate?

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #3 –
Quote
Let me ask to be 100% sure...
90% of my AAC files are converted from MP3s. So you're saying that I should leave alone those MP3s and don't bother to convert them, normalize their bitrate etc.? And if yes, when downloading any CD in MP3 when it's available choose 192k bitrate?
Excatly, but when download some file, look to download it at possible highest bitrate because, today most mp3 is encoded with xnig and blade encoders.

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #4 –
Quote from: kissandswallow on
Let me ask to be 100% sure...
90% of my AAC files are converted from MP3s. So you're saying that I should leave alone those MP3s and don't bother to convert them, normalize their bitrate etc.? And if yes, when downloading any CD in MP3 when it's available choose 192k bitrate?
Unless you're converting e.g. to a memory-constrained pocketplayer... DON'T.

Leave it as MP3.

When you download MP3's, always download the highest bitrate available.

Of course, if you're like me, i.e. having limited hard disk space... I personally burn the MP3's onto CD-R's, transcode them onto Vorbis -q 2 (or smaller), and delete the MP3's from my hard disk.

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #5 –
Quote from: kissandswallow on
But when I imported AAC files to WMP11 I hadn't no cover art, no tags in file. I guess Microsoft doesn't like Apple and that's the reason of this bug.


No, for once we can't blame Microsoft. They just haven't implemented AAC yet - though they may not choose to. Moreover, it's not Apple's format (although protected AAC is):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

Having said that, Apple is one of the few companies to support the format.

Moreover, even if WMP could decode AAC files, it could still run into problems with iTunes artwork. Since iTunes 7, the artwork is kept in a proprietary database (file extension .itc) and would not get exported with the music files in any case, so Windows Media Player wouldn't get anything to see.

Quote
However I think that I could convert all of my music to WMA. But I don't know will I lose much of the quality doing AAC->WMA which was before done MP3->AAC. Is it better to me to convert from MP3->WMA?


I'd guess that would be better than transcoding the same files a second time. But if you want to use Windows Media Player why not use the MP3 files if you still have them? WMP can play those. I'm more of a Mac myself - although I also use Windows and Linux - but I prefer to use MP3, because it is better supported (in particular by all the portable players). If you choose AAC or WMA you're more tied in - more limited in terms of where and in what you can play back.

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #6 –
Quote from: kissandswallow on
Most people here would prefer AAC. WMA Pro is objectively better than standard WMA but portables don't support it. I think AAC is more likely to be a format that will be easily usable 10 years from now.


REALLY?? I'm not sure I follow this logic. After all these years since the iPod was new, to my knowledge NOT ONE other portable music player vendor yet offers a portable music player with AAC support. Yet virtually all support basic WMA, if not WMA Pro, Lossless or DRM'ed WMA.

I guess your statement is true if you intend to stick with Apple iPod line forever. If you rip to AAC, you pretty much are committed to that direction, it looks to me. And Microsoft may (almost certainly will) continue to revise and upgrade its WMA format, but I can't seriously forsee that some future post-Vista Windows Media Player won't be able to play the WMAs one ripped in 2006.

Of course, in computing terms, 10 years down the road is an eon. Microsoft may be sucking exhaust by then, with most people running Macs or Linux boxes. (One can only hope!) I wouldn't bet the ranch on ANYTHING for 2016.

Or am I missing something obvious?

BTW, I rip to MP3 and FLAC. I would use AAC, if anyone else besides Apple supported it, but I won't allow myself to be bound by Microsoft and WMA either.

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #7 –
Quote from: weirving on
Quote from: kissandswallow on
Most people here would prefer AAC. WMA Pro is objectively better than standard WMA but portables don't support it. I think AAC is more likely to be a format that will be easily usable 10 years from now.

Sorry for being off-topic, but do you realize that you're quoting the wrong person?

You also did this with the other reply you posted today.

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #8 –
Quote from: weirving on
I would use AAC, if anyone else besides Apple supported it


A lot of new mobile phones support it, the Archos 404 supports it, I think some of the Creative Zen players support it...
There's probably more, and support will only keep growing.

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #9 –
IIRC, current models of Sony MP3 players also support AAC.

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #10 –
Even Microsoft's new Zune media player (to be released by the end of 2006) will support AAC audio files. Microsoft's Zune player will playback standard encoded AAC (.m4a) audio files as long as there is NO DRM protection on the file such as those songs purchased from iTunes (.m4p files).

The fact that Microsoft is supporting standard AAC (.m4a) audio file playback (and of course MP3 and WMA) on their very first Zune media player to compete with the Apple iPod says much about how "popular" the AAC format is becoming.

Ajax

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #11 –
This is the HA thread about AAC hardware support:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=47177&st=0

Let's not forget AAC is not just some format of Apple. In fact Apple has nothing to do with AAC, they just took a license like Real and Nero did. AAC was made by some big names in the industry like Fraunhofer (indeed, the ones behind MP3) Nokia, Sony and a couple of others.
Every night with my star friends / We eat caviar and drink champagne
Sniffing in the VIP area / We talk about Frank Sinatra
Do you know Frank Sinatra? / He's dead

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #12 –
Quote from: pepoluan on
When you download MP3's, always download the highest bitrate available.


But be aware that if it's 320kbps then it could have been re-encoded (transcoded) from a 128kbps mp3 by some well meaning individual who incorrectly believed that it would improve sound quality!

Cheers,
David.

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #13 –
Hhmm... If you want to download MP3's just always choose VBR's. 90% chance it's a Lame encoded file. Better than ending up with some 320Kbps Xing with a dubious background (trancoded like 2Bdecided said?).
Every night with my star friends / We eat caviar and drink champagne
Sniffing in the VIP area / We talk about Frank Sinatra
Do you know Frank Sinatra? / He's dead

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #14 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: pepoluan on
When you download MP3's, always download the highest bitrate available.
But be aware that if it's 320kbps then it could have been re-encoded (transcoded) from a 128kbps mp3 by some well meaning individual who incorrectly believed that it would improve sound quality!
Quote from: Maurits on
Hhmm... If you want to download MP3's just always choose VBR's. 90% chance it's a Lame encoded file. Better than ending up with some 320Kbps Xing with a dubious background (trancoded like 2Bdecided said?).

You guys have some points there.

Well, so I must limit my suggestion to: Download the highest bitrate available only from those sites who understand what they're doing

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #15 –
But why go for 320 when you can get a smaller file that is also likely to be transparent?  Beats transcoding your 320 down to -V 5, for instance.

I've seen what 2Bdecided and Maurits have mentioned far too many times.

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #16 –
Who knows there might be trumpet calls or herding calls inside

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #17 –
Quote from: Nick E on
No, for once we can't blame Microsoft. They just haven't implemented AAC yet - though they may not choose to. Moreover, it's not Apple's format (although protected AAC is):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding


Those interested in the origins of AAC might look at the similiarities between Johnston, J. D. and Ferreira, A. J., “Sum-difference stereo transform coding,” ICASSP '92, March, 1992, pp. II-569-572.
and MPEG-2 AAC LC.

You may find:
  • A different optional analysis/synthesis window.
  • A non-uniform quantizer (that is a pain at high rates)
  • A few enhancements to the bitstream
  • Temporal Noise Shaping
Quote from: Maurits on
This is the HA thread about AAC hardware support:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=47177&st=0

Let's not forget AAC is not just some format of Apple. In fact Apple has nothing to do with AAC, they just took a license like Real and Nero did. AAC was made by some big names in the industry like Fraunhofer (indeed, the ones behind MP3) Nokia, Sony and a couple of others.



Really? Personally, I'd have to say that AT&T Research and Bell Labs - Research had the biggest input.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #18 –
Quote from: pepoluan on
Who knows there might be trumpet calls or herding calls inside


Harpsichords raising hell  . Way OT, but just couldn't resist!!

audiomars
Reason is immortal, all else mortal
- Pythagoras

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #19 –
Quote from: Woodinville on
Really? Personally, I'd have to say that AT&T Research and Bell Labs - Research had the biggest input.

They are the 'couple of others'.
Next time I'll include the full list, I just didn't feel like looking it up...

My main point was that Apple didn't create AAC and just took a license like so many others.
Every night with my star friends / We eat caviar and drink champagne
Sniffing in the VIP area / We talk about Frank Sinatra
Do you know Frank Sinatra? / He's dead

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #21 –
Quote
My main point was that Apple didn't create AAC and just took a license like so many others.


This is not true - AAC standard specifies the bitstream and the tools used in the codec - but it is up to the individual implementators to choose strategies for encoding - both Apple and Nero have their own implementation of AAC encoder.

That said, Nero and Apple definitely invested a lot of their know-how into developing these encoding strategies which can be seen from the quality increase of the AAC products during the last couple of years.

Of course, AT&T (JJ and his team) is definitely the biggest contributor to the AAC standard, as the majority of the tools contained there originate from JJ's & Ferreira's stereo codec and subsequent PAC developments - however, I can say that psychoacoustic and bit rate allocation models found in e.g. Nero AAC encoder are development of its own.

WMA vs AAC vs ... (again...)

Reply #22 –
Quote from: Ivan Dimkovic on
Quote

My main point was that Apple didn't create AAC and just took a license like so many others.


This is not true - AAC standard specifies the bitstream and the tools used in the codec - but it is up to the individual implementators to choose strategies for encoding - both Apple and Nero have their own implementation of AAC encoder.

That said, Nero and Apple definitely invested a lot of their know-how into developing these encoding strategies which can be seen from the quality increase of the AAC products during the last couple of years.

Of course, AT&T (JJ and his team) is definitely the biggest contributor to the AAC standard, as the majority of the tools contained there originate from JJ's & Ferreira's stereo codec and subsequent PAC developments - however, I can say that psychoacoustic and bit rate allocation models found in e.g. Nero AAC encoder are development of its own.

I know, but neither Nero or Apple created or owns the AAC standard. They create encoders, the strategies like you said, invest time and money in perfecting encoding techniques etc. Still, you have to create an encoder that delivers files that stay within the boundaries set by the standard.

My main objection is the claim that is often heard that AAC is some proprietary Apple standard. Does Nero pay license fees to Apple? No they don't.
Every night with my star friends / We eat caviar and drink champagne
Sniffing in the VIP area / We talk about Frank Sinatra
Do you know Frank Sinatra? / He's dead