compressing flacs again
AAC has better quality for the same bitrates when compared to MP3. As a results it goes transparent at lower bitrates than MP3.
Well, that's not my experience! I did some ABX'ing not so long ago with a few of my favorite tracks with much mid-high freq content which I assume is hard for an encoder. ~128kbit Nero encoding had nasty metallic/smearing artefacts, while I didn't hear a thing in my LAME -V 5 encode.I'm using LAME 3.98 -V 5 happily and store A LOT of music on my 32G iPhone (using foobar2000 btw). Still haven't noticed an encoding artifact, but yet I don't listen much for those anyway when I'm working
Well it's a generalization. In general AAC provide better audio quality than MP3 for the same bitrate. The listening tests that have been done prove this. This does not mean it's true in all case across all music for all people.
Generalization statements likes this are generally frowned upon especially since the results of the public listening tests showed that neither Nero AAC nor iTunes AAC were all that superior to Lame mp3 at the 128kbps VBR bitrate. It was a general consensus that 128kbps VBR is just too high of a bitrate to pick out differences between encoders with non-killer samples. That is why there is talk of a new listening test that will use 96kbps VBR as the testing bitrate. You can feel free to talk about your experiences but generalized statements like cannot be made just from your results. Now, if you would have come out and said "I think Nero AAC or iTunes AAC would be better than Lame mp3 as that is what my blind ABX tests show" then alright. However, you made a blanket statement saying that AAC is better. Which AAC? FAAC? Certainly not. Many blind ABX tests from not only myself but others show that FAAC does not perform as well as Lame mp3 at the 96-128kbps VBR bitrate range.
You're apparently telling me that drawing any sort of generalized conclusion from the test is bad.
I'm a bit confused by your reply.
The wiki draws no conclusions, so please provide links to the exact tests that support your points; otherwise retract your claims or get a warning for TOS8.
Others have touched on the issues with your statements but you said AAC in general. One of my issues (aside from the supplied documentation that goes against your blanket statement) is that you didn't specify which AAC encoder. You just said AAC. FAAC performs poorly (at least from my blind ABX tests and those of others) and I am sure I can dig up a bunch of other AAC encoders that haven't been updated in years and are worse than even the iTunes or FhG mp3 encoders. Hence why AAC is not generally better than mp3. Two AAC encoders are widely tests: Nero and iTunes/QuickTime. So how can you make a generalized statement regarding AAC quality when really only two encoders have been heavily tested (at least here, maybe throw in the Coding Technologies encoder)?
Further, I referenced the paper written by Karlheinz Brandenburg (PDF) which highlights the various improvements of AAC over MP3 which improve it's coding efficiency.
AAC beating mp3:Case #1Case #2
Where are your test results showing that AAC achieves transparency at lower bitrates than mp3?
Do you have any personal results with the most recent encoders?
I'll be patiently awaiting the logs from your ABX results.
Sorry, but I didn't save them from years ago. I didn't realize I would be called on the carpet on an internet forum over 3 years later to prove myself.
You don't believe that a recording can have depth to the soundstage.
However, you might be surprised what you can hear when you listen to a system with a flat frequency and more importantly a flat phase response with a good recording.
Humor me for a minute here. If you are blindfolded in a room and someone is talking to you in the room, can you tell how far away from you they are? Of course you can. If you go to a concert hall and sit on the stage and listen to an orchestra you can also tell with just your ears that some instruments are closer to you an others. Why is it so hard to believe that a stereo recording can capture the the same acoustic characteristics that your two ears can hear sitting in that room or sitting on the stage? If microphones can record the same things that your ears can hear why don't you believe that an audio system of sufficient quality can reproduce what's recorded?
Well, that's not my experience! I did some ABX'ing not so long ago with a few of my favorite tracks with much mid-high freq content which I assume is hard for an encoder. ~128kbit Nero encoding had nasty metallic/smearing artefacts, while I didn't hear a thing in my LAME -V 5 encode.
Quote from: odyssey on 06 January, 2010, 09:31:45 AMWell, that's not my experience! I did some ABX'ing not so long ago with a few of my favorite tracks with much mid-high freq content which I assume is hard for an encoder. ~128kbit Nero encoding had nasty metallic/smearing artefacts, while I didn't hear a thing in my LAME -V 5 encode.I've noticed that Nero seems to have a smearing problem with certain tracks such as Linchpin, that loses to LAME -V5.