[Calroth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jigglybootch /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not a big fan of AAC. At low bit rates I think AAC sounds a little better, but once you start getting up past 160 kbps, I find mp3 far more pleasing.

If I recall, for high bitrates (like 192kbit and up), MPEG layer 2 (MP2) sounds better than MP3. By design.

 

[Sir Nobax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia The MP2 encoder may exploit or not interchannel redundancies depending on its encoding mode. In pure stereophonic mode, this makes MP2 less efficient than MP3 on low bitrates (lower than 192 kbit/s). For example, a 128 kbit/s MP3 encoded audio usually sounds, to the human ear, truer to the original source than the same audio encoded as 192 kbit/s MP2. However MP2 can reach similar encoding performances to MP3 stereophonic mode thanks to its Joint Stereo coding mode which removes stereo intensity irrelevance. MP2 performs better than MP3 on high bitrates (192 to 384 kbit/s) and is generally more error resilient than MP3, so MP2 is considered optimal, and is the de facto standard, for broadcast applications. Typically, private broadcasters worldwide compress their material at 256kb/s while their counterparts in public broadcasting (including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Channel Africa, Deutsche Welle, Radio France Internationale, Radio Canada International, Radio Netherlands, the SABC, the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation, and VOA, to cite a few) use 384kb/s.

Hmm, how strange it seemed, though Calroth is right.

 

[Sir Nobax]

384kbps MP2, me want

.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Nobax /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hmm, how strange it seemed, though Calroth is right.

Note that the Wikipedia article that you quote talks about efficiency and error resiliency, while Calroth said that it "sounds better." While these things may be correlated, they are not the same thing. Once a codec reaches the point that it is indistinguishable from the original, it will not "sound better" than another codec that also sounds indistinguishable from the original.

 

[Sir Nobax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Once a codec reaches the point that it is indistinguishable from the original, it will not "sound better" than another codec that also sounds indistinguishable from the original.

Thats pretty obvious, ain't it

.

 

[Calroth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Note that the Wikipedia article that you quote talks about efficiency and error resiliency, while Calroth said that it "sounds better." While these things may be correlated, they are not the same thing. Once a codec reaches the point that it is indistinguishable from the original, it will not "sound better" than another codec that also sounds indistinguishable from the original.

Well, the article says "performs better" and you say "efficiency", which is sound quality - what else?

But on principle, I'd say that you're 100% right. Of course, the only way to find whether a codec "sounds better" is to do a double-blind test. So, dear original poster, please do an ABX between 192kbit MP3 and 256kbit AAC. I bet you can't hear a difference, so 192kbit MP3 is the best 'cos it's smaller and more compatible.

(OK, that's slightly tongue-in-cheek. I do believe in ABX'ing. A lot of people here think it's heresy and codecs should be ranked on purely technical measures. To you: fine. Use MP2...)

 

[bigshot]

192 AAC would be roughly comparable to 256 MP3, so AAC wins on file size, not the other way around.

see ya
Steve

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif 192 AAC would be roughly comparable to 256 MP3, so AAC wins on file size, not the other way around.

I'm not aware any listening tests that support that conclusion.

 

[craiglester]

Meh. Just use whatever you think sounds best to your ears. Listening tests are only valid for the listener taking it. Flac for accuracy, Lame 192 for total compatability, etc.. yadda yadda.. It's all down to personal tastes.. not like we can't afford the disk space any more is it?

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not aware any listening tests that support that conclusion.

Try it yourself. I have.

See ya
Steve