AAC vs. MP3: Tested and Rated Part 2 | iLounge News

News

AAC vs. MP3: Tested and Rated Part 2

Gunnar Van Vliet has written Part 2 of his “REPORT ON THE RELATIVE QUALITY OF AAC AUDIO TO MP3” at RecordStoreReview.com.

“The purpose of this test is to compare more codecs at a low, medium and high bit rate. I think from this sampling it will be easy to estimate where other bit rates fit in with various types of music.”

« PC World: Piracy Worries End ITunes Streaming

Dell iPod Deal Returns! 30GB $409 15GB $319 »

Related Stories

Comments

1

Wait a minute.  Gunnar compares iTunes and Quicktime AAC against each other.  Don’t they use the same codec?  I don’t iTunes can encode AAC *without* Quicktime.

Posted by san on May 20, 2003 at 5:59 AM (PDT)

2

I was surprised byt that myself but there is indeed access to an enhanced AAC encoder through Quick Time Pro. It has a setting of “better” and “best”. Doesn’t seem a practical way of encoding a large collection of CDs though…

Posted by pingin in europe on May 20, 2003 at 10:57 AM (PDT)

3

So the enhanced AAC encoding has to be done through a QT application other than iTunes?  I have QT Pro, but I only get two choices in iTunes—“High Quality (128 kbps)” and “Custom”.

Honestly, I think iTunes High Quality AAC sounds better than Good (160 kbps) iTunes MP3, so I’m not exactly getting the same anecdotal results that Gunnar is.

Posted by san on May 20, 2003 at 1:22 PM (PDT)

4

The really interesting thing is, there’s an application called Aachoo (think there’s an article on this site) which appears to be using the QuickTime Pro “best” setting to encode AAC (I think I followed the link from this site). Isn’t that amazing? If it’s accessible (they claim you don’t need pro, which I believe), why didn’t Apple just add an option to use it in iTunes?
I like Gunnar’s article, especially the fact that he includes both the blind and non-blind results. I believe he really does hear big differences between the 128kbps iTunes standard encoding and the QT 128kbps “best” setting. There is a bit of a disparity between his initial evalaution of 128kbsp iTunes AAC and the results of the second test where he fairly well rubbishes it.
I’m almost tempted to buy Aachoo…

Posted by pingin in europe on May 20, 2003 at 1:40 PM (PDT)

5

The review is quite good which gives the same result I found. As a windows Ipod user, I have given up listen 128k mp3s with my ipod, once I have try to rip my own mp3s with CDs in 160-320 vbr with lame and Exact Audio Copy. And I am start buying used cd in auction to replace my 128k mp3 collection. Who said mp3 will ruin music industry and mp3 lovers are all thieves? wink

Posted by Cywalker in Hong kong on May 21, 2003 at 9:49 PM (PDT)

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2014 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy