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: Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus? (Read 42268 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Alright so I'm experimenting with ripping music and adding it to my mp3 player. Now Mostly I used aac Itunes Plus because in my opinion I think iTunes is better for the aac codec. Now I've heard that when using Lame for ripping CD's that if you set it to 320 k/bits you'll have amazing quality almost as good as the cd. So I was thinking about switching audio formats. I have browsed google and I didn't find anything useful for this. I did a test with a song using aac Itunes Plus and mp3 320 (using lame encoder) and I thought the mp3 was a little better than aac but I wasn't sure. So my question is what is better? Itunes Plus aac or Lame Mp3 at 320 k/bits? If you don't know what itunes plus is here's a description of the bitrate "128kbps(Mono)/256kbs(Stereo), 44.100 khz, VBR, optimized for MMX/SSE2". Thanks for the help

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #1 –
Lame mp3 320 kbps (but also V0 ect) is very good, so is AAC which is definitely more advanced than mp3, at least from a technical point of view but on a quality level comparing they're both pretty good. It's up to you to choose what you find trasparent to your ears, do some abx and make up your mind =)

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #2 –
Quote from: Larson on
Lame mp3 320 kbps (but also V0 ect) is very good, so is AAC which is definitely more advanced than mp3, at least from a technical point of view but on a quality level comparing they're both pretty good. It's up to you to choose what you find trasparent to your ears, do some abx and make up your mind =)
Alright I did a little more testing and set up aac to 320. Still I thought mp3 is better  Of course iTunes wasn't really known for the best encoders. It seems the mp3 sound is a little more clear and loud. The aac track seems like it's been turned down in volume a little. Plus the mp3 size is smaller   

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #3 –
Wait you haven't transcoded AACs files to mp3, have you? It is better for you to rip straight from lossless or directly cd to the lossy format of choice.

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #4 –
Guitarboy55, please do some ABX test and i am sure you will surprise yourself at what you think you are hearing you are not. 320 is considered overkill you simply don't need to go that hight to get transparency for 99.9% of your music. Too say you hear the difference between 320 mp3 and AAC in iTunes plus is absurd.

Here is a place to start.  What is blind ABX test - http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=16295    and  http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=ABX

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #5 –
Quote from: GuitarBoy55 on
Of course iTunes wasn't really known for the best encoders.

With iTunes versions from the last two years and hours of blind testing, I came to the exact opposite conclusion.

Quote
The aac track seems like it's been turned down in volume a little.

This is possible with very loud (i.e. loudness war) music. iTunes used to apply a limiter (or compressor) to loud passages upon encoding so the waveform doesn't clip when decoding. Don't know if it still does.

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #6 –
are you converting the mp3 from the AAC? It is better to rip straight through lossless media eg:- CD, WAV.

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Seeking_Lossless on
are you converting the mp3 from the AAC? It is better to rip straight through lossless media eg:- CD, WAV.
No I haven't. I used eac with Lame to make the mp3's. Trust me I would never convert a lossy codec to another one. Loses even more quality! I'm also going to check out the blind ABX test to see if I'm right.

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #8 –
Alright guys I did ABX testing with Foobar2000 and I thought that A was more dull in sound compared to B. After 5 tests I got only one wrong proving I could tell a difference. Also a good reason why I could tell is because I'm 13 so I have younger ears which means I have a better listening skill. And button A was the aac file while B was the .mp3. And in conclusion lame mp3 is better than itunes aac (even at 320 k/bits  )

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #9 –
Quote from: GuitarBoy55 on
After 5 tests I got only one wrong proving I could tell a difference.
This is hardly proof.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=16295

Please do not post about quality differences between codecs until you have sufficient test results.

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: GuitarBoy55 on
After 5 tests I got only one wrong proving I could tell a difference.
This is hardly proof.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=16295

Please do not post about quality differences between codecs until you have sufficient test results.
I did it again with a different song. I also forgot to hide the results on the last test so I did this time and did the test 5 times listening very carefully. I counted my results which was 5 and right when I finished the results were the same! 4/5 correct. MP3 is a little better but there's almost no difference between Lame mp3 and aac. New song, I hid the plays that were correct, and still the same results! I know the test could be a little more accurate but it's definitely not inaccurate.

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #12 –
Quote from: GuitarBoy55 on
Alright I did a little more testing and set up aac to 320. Still I thought mp3 is better  Of course iTunes wasn't really known for the best encoders. It seems the mp3 sound is a little more clear and loud. The aac track seems like it's been turned down in volume a little. Plus the mp3 size is smaller 

If they are both 320 kbps CBR then the only thing that could make them different sizes is if the tags are different.

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #13 –
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: GuitarBoy55 on
Alright I did a little more testing and set up aac to 320. Still I thought mp3 is better  Of course iTunes wasn't really known for the best encoders. It seems the mp3 sound is a little more clear and loud. The aac track seems like it's been turned down in volume a little. Plus the mp3 size is smaller 

If they are both 320 kbps CBR then the only thing that could make them different sizes is if the tags are different.


Are frame headers and other container data counted in the bitrate?  I was under the impression that they weren't, which also could cause a difference in the size.

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #14 –
Quote from: SCOTU on
Are frame headers and other container data counted in the bitrate?  I was under the impression that they weren't, which also could cause a difference in the size.

The entire audio frame is counted in the bitrate, but only the audio frames. If you removed all non-audio frames then a 320 kbps CBR file would have exactly 320,000 bits per second.

The exception is WMA, for which 320 kbps is 320 x 1024 bits per second.

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #15 –
Quote from: GuitarBoy55 on
Alright guys I did ABX testing with Foobar2000 and I thought that A was more dull in sound compared to B. After 5 tests I got only one wrong proving I could tell a difference. Also a good reason why I could tell is because I'm 13 so I have younger ears which means I have a better listening skill. And button A was the aac file while B was the .mp3. And in conclusion lame mp3 is better than itunes aac (even at 320 k/bits  )

WOW 13 YEARS OLD.      ..i never HAD THIS (hak) KIND OF RESOURCE at that age...as a matter of fact CD audio was just a dream...We were worrying about getting a Technicis SL1200 and a good cassette deck with Dolby C NR. 13 year old ears !!!Take GOOD care of those ears and they should last you a lifetime !!!!
Do not let your decision on what codac to be used be influenced by anything other than what sounds best to you....I myself use Lame MP3 at VBR v.0 or .OGG at level 6 and i try to stay as far away for anything "ITUNES" related. But thats just me.As much as I love High end Audio...once in a while i try to remember what it was like to have to contend with tape hiss and Vinyl noise instead of worrying about what codac gives you the most bang per bit rate...They ALL seem to work well if you are listening to music on a portable device...At home I go lossless  (FLAC)all the way unless there is no other alternative 

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #16 –
Guitar boy,

please give us some more info on the two tracks you listened to, so we can do the ABX ourselves. Artist, song, which passage of the song, CD title.

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #17 –
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: SCOTU on
Are frame headers and other container data counted in the bitrate?  I was under the impression that they weren't, which also could cause a difference in the size.

The entire audio frame is counted in the bitrate, but only the audio frames. If you removed all non-audio frames then a 320 kbps CBR file would have exactly 320,000 bits per second.

The exception is WMA, for which 320 kbps is 320 x 1024 bits per second.


Only WMA reports its bitrate correctly?  Weird, I never knew that.  I guess file size has never mattered to me so I never cared to look.

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #18 –
guitarboy have you tested any AAC encoded with true vbr settings?

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #19 –
Quote from: SCOTU on
Only WMA reports its bitrate correctly?  Weird, I never knew that.  I guess file size has never mattered to me so I never cared to look.


What do you mean with "correctly"? In transmission and storage (and bitrate is a transmission unit) the SI scale (kilo = 1000) has always been used. Hard drives, USB flash, internet connection speed...

The "kibi" unit (2^10 = 1024) it's just a unit related to RAM (since the addressable space is defined in base 2), and Microsoft started using it to show file sizes since MS-DOS (or windows.. not sure now..), which in some cases has been considered a bad decision (due to the discreancy between the size that HDD manufacturers say their drives have versus what the OS shows it has).

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #20 –
The binary kilobit has been the standard for filesize since DOS, as you said.  Other markets adopted the base ten kilobit for marketing reasons because they can make their product seem faster/larger with that scheme.  Furthermore, HDDs actually store their data in chunks of 4KiB, as do filesystems.  Since audio bitrate is mostly correlated to filesize, it would make most sense to list it in the units used for filesize.

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #21 –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilobit : "the decimal definition (1 kilobit per second = 1,000 bits per second) is used uniformly in the context of telecommunication transmission speeds"

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #22 –
Quote from: jimmanningjr on
WOW 13 YEARS OLD.


I wouldn't get too excited.  They were called out on their "ABX testing" and have pretty much disappeared.  I wouldn't mind seeing some actual ABX test logs containing more than 5 trials along with more information regarding specific encoder versions and settings as well as the source songs.  We pretty much now have this black box of "I got 4 out of 5 right" and know nothing else.  Knoweldge is power and in this case, things have been pretty powerless.

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #23 –
Quote from: Larson on
guitarboy have you tested any AAC encoded with true vbr settings?
With the custom set up of aac on itunes I used 320 k/bits with vbr encoding. For Lame I didn't since I couldn't get to 320 k/bits.

Mp3 320 k/bits VS. AAC Itunes Plus?

Reply #24 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
Quote from: jimmanningjr on
WOW 13 YEARS OLD.


I wouldn't get too excited.  They were called out on their "ABX testing" and have pretty much disappeared.  I wouldn't mind seeing some actual ABX test logs containing more than 5 trials along with more information regarding specific encoder versions and settings as well as the source songs.  We pretty much now have this black box of "I got 4 out of 5 right" and know nothing else.  Knoweldge is power and in this case, things have been pretty powerless.


He really got me to think though...about ABXing, about encoders, and about hearing ,I discovered this site:
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/hearing.html
for evaluating your hearing and developing a curve that roughly approximates the frequency response of your ears. I know it is not exact but it was interesting. I would not mind seeing a thread where everyone posts their curves with AGES and listening habit. ( Do you attend many loud rock shows etc.)
About getting more info... I have had the ABX component in Foobar for months but could never get it to work. Until today!!!You must pick 2 songs at once...Duh!!!!!Even Mr. 13 got that far!:-) I did a few tests to test it ...WOW...(sorry I do not have results to post ala log files) but i was shocked at how hard it was to tell the difference from lossless and Vorbis (set at 0)!!!!Very Impressive compression and sound quality !!!
Having said that I am gonna sit down soon a do some extensive testing. I am gonna reread the link about testing...I think it is also very important to use several different types of music for each test...I am open to all advice on this subject I really want to do these tests up right!!