Skip to main content

Topic: AAC or MP3, which is better above 175k in most samples? (Read 11420 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • misuzu
  • [*]
AAC or MP3, which is better above 175k in most samples?
lots of device support aac
if aac's quality better than mp3 , I will change format
  • Last Edit: 26 January, 2011, 10:54:40 AM by misuzu

  • Zarggg
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
AAC or MP3, which is better above 175k in most samples?
Reply #1
You'll need to do your own tests to determine this, but in my experience I have found there to be little quality difference (based on encoded bitrate) and almost no perceptual difference between these formats at that level.
  • Last Edit: 26 January, 2011, 01:23:34 PM by Zarggg

  • Fandango
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
AAC or MP3, which is better above 175k in most samples?
Reply #2
After doing some tests, I can say that I don't hear a difference between both at those high bitrates. So naturally my approach was to choose a lower default bitrate for lossy encodes.

  • Louck
  • [*]
AAC or MP3, which is better above 175k in most samples?
Reply #3
mp3 can be played even on a kitchen toaster and quality at ~190 kbps is roughly the same as aac 175. I tried aac and the lack of compatibility vs questionable technical superiority didn't convince me at all. Why switch if there are tons of players and software for mp3? Give me same quality and 1/2 filesize of an mp3 and I might consider switching. Although I'm gradually moving to lossless, I believe mp3 will be the last widespread lossy format.

Don't look at a format. Just enjoy your music!

AAC or MP3, which is better above 175k in most samples?
Reply #4
Although mp3 is still considered to be the "universal" audio format, AAC support has grown exponentially over the years and it isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be.  The majority of portable players sold, which are iPods, playback AAC files; I can walk into the Best Buy over here and half of the car CD decks will play mp3 and AAC files while the other half will play mp3 and WMA; a good chunk of stand-alone Blu-ray players support AAC; any smartphone out now supports AAC files (whether it be an Android, iOS, BlackBerry, or Windows Mobile 7 powered one); there are tons of programs supporting AAC; and the list goes on.  In fact, every single device in my house supports the playback of AAC files.  I couldn't say that 3-4 years ago but the popularity of the iTunes Store and Apple's various iDevice lines has increased AAC compatibility from other companies.
  • Last Edit: 27 January, 2011, 05:46:55 PM by kornchild2002

  • polemon
  • [*][*][*]
AAC or MP3, which is better above 175k in most samples?
Reply #5
With all the backing from big companies, AAC will overshadow MP3 at some point.

What's a bit frustrating, the varying support for Ogg/Vorbis. Vorbis used to have good support on portable hardware players, but newer devices seem to simply go without it and include WMA support instead.

Also, keep in mind, that AAC is not just AAC. there's LC-AAC, which is the most common, but also HE-AAC+, HE-AAC+ v2, and more.
Most players don't support all of AAC, just a subset.
Most MP3 players support CBR but not VBR files.
-EOF-

  • Destroid
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
AAC or MP3, which is better above 175k in most samples?
Reply #6
If OP is using a portable player, I might venture that MP3 could use less battery than AAC and be generally as transparent at 175kbps. Or maybe newer players decode AAC just as easily, depends. I was pretty sure MP3 has lesser requirements to decode, then I'd point towards LAME at -V2 -Y unless size averages start wandering too close to 200kbps, then I guess LAME -V3 is the next recommendation.
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"

  • WonderSlug
  • [*][*][*][*]
AAC or MP3, which is better above 175k in most samples?
Reply #7
Most MP3 players support CBR but not VBR files.


Huh?

Give me some examples of MP3 players made in the last 3 or 4 years that don't support VBR files.

Every device I have that supports MP3 can play VBR files.  That's various DVD players, Blu-Ray players, PMP, cellphones, even a 5 year old Sony MP3/CD Walkman.

  • kwanbis
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
AAC or MP3, which is better above 175k in most samples?
Reply #8
Most MP3 players support CBR but not VBR files.

Where you got that from? At least not with any player from the last 5 year.s

  • B7k
  • [*]
AAC or MP3, which is better above 175k in most samples?
Reply #9
My ears can't tell the difference between lame -V3 and Nero AAC Q0.50
Using my rockboxed ipod the only thing different is the drain on the battery when using aac.

  • SamDeRe81
  • [*][*]
AAC or MP3, which is better above 175k in most samples?
Reply #10
Well AAC was originally developed to have better quality at lower bitrates so that battery life could be preserved, thus 128 being the iTunes store default at the time it opened.

  • SCOTU
  • [*][*][*]
AAC or MP3, which is better above 175k in most samples?
Reply #11
Pretty sure AAC was actually developed in an attempt to make large sums of money by defining a new industry standard.

  • Andavari
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
AAC or MP3, which is better above 175k in most samples?
Reply #12
With all the backing from big companies, AAC will overshadow MP3 at some point.

With all the other formats out there I used to think along similar lines several years ago, however; fast forward and MP3 is like the mighty cockroach after a nuclear blast -- still alive, around, and kicking. It's here for longer than any of us could ever think and will probably outlive everyone alive at the moment. I've went back to it via LAME over the last two years, and couple it with FLAC and I find myself not needing anything else for a very long time.
Complexity of incoherent design.

  • kode54
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
AAC or MP3, which is better above 175k in most samples?
Reply #13
like the mighty cockroach after a nuclear blast -- still alive, around, and kicking.

The MythBusters debunked that. Well, at least the fact that they would survive heavy doses of radiation any better than any other creature in existence.

  • Garf
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
AAC or MP3, which is better above 175k in most samples?
Reply #14
Pretty sure AAC was actually developed in an attempt to make large sums of money by defining a new industry standard.


No, it was developed because there was a need for it (among other things, proper 5.1 support), and the need was not to facilitate digital distribution of CD's over the internet, which seems to be the only use case some people can think of.

In this one particular use case, the advantage of AAC over MP3 is not enough and it will likely never fully replace it. Something similar happened for video, but in reverse: whereas MPEG-4 ASP rip trading started getting massively popular, the industry totally ignored it because for its applications it didn't have enough advantage over MPEG-2 video.

If you mean that by agreeing on a standard, equipment could be made compatible and each of the contributors would in the end win out because there was an ecosystem of inter-operating solutions, rather than a bunch of half-assed stuff that couldn't work with each other, yes, I'm sure that ended up in making large amounts of money for all involved.

The structure and design of the codec were for sure engineered so it would include patents from as much different companies as possible. But the same was true for MPEG-1 Layer 3, and it's technically even much more obvious there.
  • Last Edit: 20 February, 2011, 04:58:15 AM by Garf