Support and General Use > Audio Playback, Database and Playlists
AACplus/HE-AAC playback on Ipod 5G Video
Febs:
--- Quote from: Gamesoul Master on July 31, 2007, 05:21:43 PM ---Yeah, but that's just one test, and AAC has progressed since that time anyway. Look at this test or this one (that second one being by far the most recent), and it's clear that AAC beats out MP3, especially using good settings for the encoder.
--- End quote ---
Actually, the first test that you cite is from 2003. This test, conducted in 2004, shows that LAME and iTunes AAC tied.
Gamesoul Master:
::Sigh:: I was not the one to start throwing tests. I showed those merely to point out that anybody can show tests to prove anything. If you tried, you could probably find a test that says MP3 beats HE-AAC in quality. I'm not big with seeking tests, because I'm not that lazy (no offense, but that's simply how I feel about searching test results when you could just run your own tests really easily).
I apologize for stating opinions as fact. To be honest, I was reading reviews and tech papers about the MP3 and MP4 formats, and everything I read kept pointing to MP3 not having much more optimization left, while MP4 is still in its earlier stages and has room for much improvement in terms of the encoders these days. Some of the things I read were certainly backed with solid reasoning, but some of it was beyond what I know. Basically, I was reading what you asked if I did (about researching it). But I do apologize, as you are right... I provided almost no proof of the "statements" I was making.
"Technically superior" I meant in terms of quality only, as you are right... AAC is more resource-intensive.
But again, I do apologize. I guess I got a bit defensive because in all the testing I've done on my own, I have never found MP3 to be as good as AAC. But of course... it's just a personal test of personal preference. So I shouldn't have been so forceful with my opinion. I apologize humbly to anybody I might've angered because of that... :(
@Febs: Ahh... I didn't notice that. Sorry, I just sort-of grabbed the tests without looking at them too closely. As I said, I'm not much for reading other peoples' tests. I noticed just about all the tests I've been looking at (yeah, now I'm just sort-of browsing them out of curiousity of being on this topic... XD), they're all pretty much outdated by at least 2 years. I guess people got tired of trying to compare them :D
Llorean:
Though to be fair, that's iTunes AAC, which should be LE. HE-AAC is more advanced (for lower bitrates) because of SBR and parametric stereo. In all honesty, HE-AAC should be expected to perform better than Standard MP3 (it should be compared to MP3Pro) at low and very low bitrates, though as you progress up to the transparency point it probably shouldn't be expected to be superior near or past there (in fact, it may be possible that it's inferior higher up since it may be more likely to add artifacts, though this is little more than a guess). For all practical purpose, HE-AAC should be considered a separate codec, and should NOT be referred to simply as "AAC"
In the end, though, the only test that matters is "Have you tried it in a blind ABX yourself" and then you pick the one that works for you.
There are objective points in how advanced the techniques used, but the phrase "technically superior" doesn't mean much, since some people would consider a technically superior codec one that "can be run on a very slow processor with a minimum of resources and still provide high quality sound at fairly low bitrates" which certainly applies to MP3 much much much more than HE-AAC, for example.
Febs:
--- Quote from: Gamesoul Master on July 31, 2007, 06:09:29 PM ---@Febs: Ahh... I didn't notice that. Sorry, I just sort-of grabbed the tests without looking at them too closely. As I said, I'm not much for reading other peoples' tests. I noticed just about all the tests I've been looking at (yeah, now I'm just sort-of browsing them out of curiousity of being on this topic... XD), they're all pretty much outdated by at least 2 years. I guess people got tired of trying to compare them :D
--- End quote ---
Actually, the folks at Hydrogen Audio pretty much stopped doing tests at moderate to high bitrates because the codecs became good enough that most codecs were transparent at those bitrates. You can't conduct a test comparing codecs when the people taking the test can't hear any difference between them. That's why you now tend to see tests like this 64kbps multiformat test, which is currently in progress.
Gamesoul Master:
True. I tried iTunes AAC and didn't really like it. Nero AAC is great though. I just wish I could use HE-AAC, but as it was already said... it's too much for the iPods to try and process. Comparing HE-AAC to MP3Pro wouldn't be much better, since they are both optimized from their original format by the same technology created by the same company... LOL. Although HE-AAC v2 has SBR *and* PS... doesn't MP3Pro only have SBR? Though it's not too useful... I have nothing besides maybe one or two media players that can play HE-AAC v2 (my Sanyo phone can only handle v1, which is still nice).
@Febs: You mean... they've pretty much decided that all the current codecs/formats are too close to transparent at 128 kbps to be distinguished? Wow... I don't think I could go down to 64 kbps for MP3 or LC-AAC, as the quality would irritate me to no end. I'm basically hoping for something around 96 kbps so as to be able to fit over 600 songs on my 2 GB Nano... ;D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version