Lame --alt-preset standard = ?? kbps AAC?
Thanks,
Ric
[353 byte] By [iric] at [2007-11-9 15:10:43] 
Does anyone know of a serious comparison of AAC bitrate versus LAME --alt-preset standard MP3 encoding (i.e. in a blind test AAC at ? kbps cannot be destringuished from LAME APS)? I'd like to know what bitrate would give equivalent results so I can decide if it's worth ripping CD's to AAC to fit more on my iPod.
Thanks,
Ric
# 1 Re: Lame --alt-preset standard = ?? kbps AAC?
Its about the same. Other uneducated people will tell you otherwise, and that 128 AAC is like 160 MP3, but it is all subjective.I reccomend you rip at 192, with whatever format you want.
Adam at 2007-11-15 17:40:39 >
# 2 Re: Lame --alt-preset standard = ?? kbps AAC?
Agreed.Doesn't matter which format for compression you choose, if you stick with 192Kbps bitrates or higher you'll be fine.
br0adband
br0adband at 2007-11-15 17:41:40 >
# 3 Re: Lame --alt-preset standard = ?? kbps AAC?
If that's true then the claim that AAC gives better quality at any given bitrate is false. If so, why would you ever want to use AAC if it doesn't save space and is a less universal format?iric at 2007-11-15 17:42:38 >
# 4 Re: Lame --alt-preset standard = ?? kbps AAC?
Ah, the joys of life.When a company gets behind something and doesn't budge, then well people get behind it too. It is supposed to give better sound, leave it at that.
Adam at 2007-11-15 17:43:44 >
# 5 Re: Lame --alt-preset standard = ?? kbps AAC?
I think 128kbps AAC sounds very good for much material on average to good equipment. If going for really good quality I'd go 192kbps as others here say (but you'll probably need good headphones or a system to match it). After that the returns diminish rapidly IMO. Why not just try your own test though? It's easy enough to do. Take advice from everyone here but I wouldn't trust anyone's ears but my own for a final decision. If you can't hear the difference between 128 and 192 then why waste the space?HiRez at 2007-11-15 17:44:44 >
# 6 Re: Lame --alt-preset standard = ?? kbps AAC?
I generally find that 128 kbps AAC is better than the equivalent in the MP3 format (even Lame), but then again MP3 is compatible with almost everything and has been around for years. But AAC encoded with quicktime (iTunes) is better than MP3 and it is probably on par with Ogg and WMA pro.I have seen a test on the 'net where AAC was judged to be marginally better than these competing formats. I'll do some googling and see can I find it.
edit: I couldn't find the link but there is some good discussion goin on about it over at Hydrogen Audio link (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=12490&)
..i at 2007-11-15 17:45:43 >
[an error occurred while processing this directive]