[Sweet Spot]

I caught that. What I said wasn't directed towards you. Thank you.

 

[akio]

aac is a billion times better than mp3! the arguement has been won in my mind hahaha.

 

[Sweet Spot]

Got a couple of AAC files from a friend late last night, so I wasn't really conscious enough to do any tests, but tonight, I'm going to rip/encode some Mp3's, Oggs, and perhaps even dnl'd iTunes so I can encode some AAC's myself and do some testing. From what I was able to tell so far, the 128 kB AAC sounded pretty good in general, and the 192 Kb (really 184 VBR) one sounded just a little crisper..but not by much, could have been my state though.

I then decided to encode some Ogg's at Q5 because at that rate, the file sizes are very similar, maybe a MB in difference in favor of AAC. The file he sent me was Radioheads "How To Disappear Completely". May not be the best test song, because it's very saturated with reverb, so I'll be doing more stuff later.

I don't really want to Dl'd iTunes, and would really like to find a front end AAC encoder or just an argument I can use with Audio Grabber. If anyone has anything like that, please pass it on.

P.S. I love your avatar Akio ! (damn it feels good to be a gangster....)

 

[nales]

iHP-120 => Direct transfer from CD to MP3 (FhG encoder => 256 kbps is transparent)

Apple's AAC encoder is rubbish anyway.
PsyTEL, however, is very good; a substantial improvement at all bitrates vs the best MP3 has to offer.
Apple is a superficial company for superficial times.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally posted by nales iHP-120 => Direct transfer from CD to MP3 (FhG encoder => 256 kbps is transparent) Apple's AAC encoder is rubbish anyway. PsyTEL, however, is very good; a substantial improvement at all bitrates vs the best MP3 has to offer. Apple is a superficial company for superficial times.

Wow, ahhh interesting statements in such a short space. 256 kbps FhG (or LAME or Blade, etc.) is not transparent (though you may have just been giving personal experience). The only major AAC encoder test I've seen (feel free to site others) gave Apple's QT top spot against all others including PsyTEL (See listening test here). Many feel LAME's more fully tested/possibly better tuned presets are above anything AAC or Ogg has yet to offer (though again this is debated and could quickly change because of their different ages). And good try flaming on the last part.

 

[clutch]

Apple's selection for AAC is easy to understand; the codec works great at low bitrates (96Kbps - 160Kbps) when compared to MP3, it's easy on CPU utilization and battery life, and has DRM which allows for more albums to be brought in to their iTunes store. I wouldn't have minded having WMA as an option, but it isn't that great for cross-platform use anyway. Since I encode MP3s at 192VBR --ape, I can play my files on all my systems with nice sound quality, so it works fine for me.

iTunes works great with my iPod in both Windows and OS X. But again, that's my opinion with 8000 tracks (about 48GB) of music in there so far, and I really dig the Smartlists. It's also easy to selectively import music to the iPod from it (I have 6GB of stuff from my library on my iPod right now, and I add stuff as I feel interested).

As for giving away QT Pro, at least you get both an AAC and MP3 encoder for free with iTunes (in Windows and OS X), whereas you only get the WMA encoder for free with WMP in Windows. Plus, I don't recall any free ASF encoders being given away with Windows, so there isn't much incentive for the Mac folks to do the same (plus I think iDVD comes with the Macs for free anyway with the SuperDrive DVD burner, but I don't know how well that works since I haven't run it yet). Plus, iTunes works better for me on Windows than WMP does for the Mac (the Mac version kept crapping out on me). Not to mention that there are free alternatives for video handling on both platforms (moreso with OS X, since you have the BSD underpinnings and can use Fink to install X-related apps). This is more of a comparison of the OSs, so I'll stop here

.

 

[Sweet Spot]

Ok, so I'm still looking for any AAC argument. Can someone please just look at their configuration settings and get one for me please ? I got the Psytel .exe and .dll but haven't been able to find the right argument to use for the external batch encoding scheme that Audio Grabber uses.

Hopefully one of you will post it before I get home from work. (25 minutes)

 

[johnnyutah2k1]

ok, i've very quickly skimmed over this thread. regarding the syncing of the ihp-120 and the music on your pc... i don't actually have one yet as it's still on pre-order, however i understand that it shows as separate drive in explorer. therefore, surely you could just use a backup synchronisation program e.g. ezback-it-up where you can choose to delete files from the target that are not in the source.

maybe i've got the wrong end of the stick with this, but i thought i'd just share this with you all...

 

[akio]

SS:
i wish i could host my icon remotely so i could show all 10 frames instead of two

 

[Sweet Spot]

Akio, that's ok...I have the movie

So....STILL no ACC command line argument for me ? Don't you people want to prove how vastly superior the format is to me ? Sheesh, thought you guys would be jumpin all over this one. AAAAaaaaaah...I get it. You evil Apple people want to punish me ...you WANT me to HAVE to install iTunes don't you ?! You bad bad people you !

 

[blessingx]

SweetSpot, I doubt you're gonna find AAC vastly superior to everything else, but at least I think you're gonna find it very comparable with Ogg (and maybe better at the upper bitrates, though LAME comes through here also). Since QT won that 128 test, I've stuck with the QT/iTunes combo, and haven't searched far from them, but you may find what you're looking for at Audiocoding or Rarewares. Worth a shot.

 

[Sweet Spot]

Thanks Blessing. I got something from the first link, just too bad I can't figure out what to do with it. There's a folder that even says front end, but I see no .exe for it. Why should this be such a hard thing to get a hold of if it's such a great format ? I guess I"ll take my time and search more. If I get frustrated, I'll dnl'd iTunes, and just replace the standard encoder with the ones' I've found...which I guess can't be used for the programs I run.

 

[blessingx]

Not sure which encoder you're trying to get a command line to, but keep in mind, as mentioned before, there's suppose to be a decent gap in quality between the various encoders. Just as LAME should be used (at the higher bitrates) to evaluate the quality of MP3, it looks like currently QT should be used to see the potential of AAC. It's likely going to be easier to drop your hesitation at iTunes and see if the format is for you there. Then you can switch to the greater VBR settings of Nero, etc. if you decide you want to use it and experiment further.

Until I see evidence (or at least a few good rumors) to the contrary, I'm going to stick to QT/iTunes for its quality.

 

[hempcamp]

Thanks for that link and data, BlessingX.

--Chris

 

[Sweet Spot]

Yes, thanks indeed. It's really ironic/funny that you posted such data because I was just comparing some files and thinking to myself:

"I see why people have to dig up the numbers and charts all the time. It's really hard to discern which file sounds better to my ears since they sound relatively the same except for a few subtle differences."

In terms of differences you can't see, I suppose each format has their own advantage, though not really Mp3 anymore. Ogg and AAC at low bitrates are significantly smaller than and sound better than MP3, or at least equal to Mp3's at a higher bit rate. That much is for sure. The advantage I see AAC having is that it will reach tons of people who use iTUnes/iPods and it's quality is good at low bitrates. For portable use, low bitrates are very acceptable. We're not talking home systems.

In comparing Ogg and AAC, it has become clear to me, (my ears ) that Ogg files encoded at Q5 (around 160 kbps- I guess Q4 is around 128...but thy're different standards so I think that Q5 is around 128 AAC ?) sound clearer, as the soundstage is noticeably wider..vocals more up front and instruments brighter. It's not a huge difference, but one that assures my steady position.

I should note that I'm using Monsoon PM 9's (2 pair actually) a TB Santa Cruz and for a media player, QCD, which is by far the best sounding media player I've heard out of all the discussed media players for the PC....Free ones anyway. (and no, I don't like foobar, think it sucks in a big way)

Anyway, after having read what you said in conjunction with the information you linked I immediately got rid of the FAAC encoder ! I understand what you're saying about iTunes being the one to use to decide whether or not AAC is for me as well. But using a higher bitrate setting in Nero doesn't sound like a real solution , especially with my Ogg findings. I'm more than satisfied with what I have. If I used a Mac, knowing what I know now, I'd still want an IHP-120 and want to use Ogg. Though the bottom line is that I'd HAVE to use iTunes, becuase out of what there is to use for the Mac, iTunes is the best choice.