mp3 or aac? [Archive] - iLounge Forums

kornchild2002

05-25-2006, 07:50 AM

There is a Lame plug-in for the Mac OS X version of iTunes. You can simply google it. The only problem with that is that it will take quite a bit of time to rip a CD. I think iTunes can rip a audio CD at -V 2 --vbr-new (~190kbps VBR) with Lame 3.97b1 at a speed of 2X. This isn't very fast. You may want to look at putting boot camp on your computer as Windows cas use a program called EAC and rip a audio CD at speeds of 20X.

Come to think of it, I am not sure if the iTunes Lame plug-in works for Intel powered Apple comptuers. I know it works for PowerPC computers but I am unsure if it works for Intel powered computers.

If you want more information on the mpeg-4 AAC format (iTunes AAC), Lame mp3 format, or iTunes mp3 format, please see the 30 some odd posts below your (I have commented in most of them).

From my experience, it is a waste of space to rip at 192kbps VBR mpeg-4 AAC simply because the AAC format is made to excel at lower bitrates (ie 160kbps and below). Granted, 192kbps VBR mpeg-4 AAC will produce high quality files but they really don't have much more quality than songs encoded with the iTunes mp3 encoder. Once you get up to the 192kbps bitrate, the differences between iTunes AAC and iTunes mp3 are small. The iTunes mp3 encoder is really one of the worst mp3 encoders out there. MusicMatch, Windows Media Player, iTunes, the free version of Winamp, etc. all use the Frauhoffer mp3 encoder which hasn't received a major update in 8 years (it had a small update in 2000 but this didn't affect audio quality, more of a bug issue). With the iTunes AAC format, you would be much better encoding at 160kbps VBR. With Lame mp3, I recomend testing -V 4 --vbr-new and -V 2 --vbr-new. Do some BLIND listening tests and I bet that -V 4 --vbr-new (~160kbps VBR) will sound CD quality. In fact, it is the newest Lame default setting.

~tl

05-25-2006, 09:02 AM

You can compile LAME for the Intel version of OS X, then the Applescript plugin will use that... so I don't see why it shouldn't work.

TOM

iamabanana

05-25-2006, 03:34 PM

i installed the LAME plugin from blacktree.com but was hoping someone could clearly recommend an encoding option. I am not looking for a lossless file, but want something that will sound good even with a good quality system (one can always dream..). Thanks,
-Carmel

~tl

05-25-2006, 03:58 PM

I use -V 2 --vbr-new. It creates VBR files of around 190kbps... which is a good toss up between space and sound quality. The files are supposed to be pretty indistinguishable from the actual CD... though that will depend on how much of an audiophile you are!

A full list of the different options are available here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28124

TOM

iamabanana

05-25-2006, 04:55 PM

well right now my headphones aren't anything special (mediocre sony traditional style over the ear...mdr-something) so i don't hear the nuances of high-quality audio anyways, but with better systems I still want definition. I am not crazy about the sound or anything, its more about content...but it would just be quite frustrating to rip a large cd collection only to begin to hear flaws in your music (which is what happened to me when I started using iTunes to rip mp3 a few years ago). I'm still not sure about LAME though and looking at the other posts just brought new ideas to support both sides into my head...

Even though both work out fine now, I don't want to regret anything...but its only digital music anyways...

Code Monkey

05-25-2006, 06:33 PM

If another opinion helps, I started out using AAC and regretted it, and wound up re-ripping 500+ CDs with EAC/LAME (and thought better of that and re-ripped most to FLAC so I can upgrade as better iterations of LAME become available, but that's a whole other matter ;)).

If nothing else, think of it like this: The iPod is not the superior product out there when it comes to purely technical aspects, but it does have the better overall package, one aspect of which is the numerous add-ons available for it - that is mp3 compared to AAC. Yes, AAC does have some potential qualities that could arguably make it surpass mp3 one day, but for now there's no clear reason to choose AAC and there are reams of utilities out there that will let you tweak mp3s (e.g. try finding a free utility for merging or cutting AAC files).

Galley

05-25-2006, 07:39 PM

All the "cool kids" use AAC. You wanna be cool, don't you? ;)

kornchild2002

05-26-2006, 07:32 AM

I would just go with -V 2 --vbr-new Lame mp3. You get pretty good file sizes, high quality VBR encoding, and universal compatibility. The Lame mp3 encoder has the same quality as the iTunes AAC encoder so you will be getting the same quality with either encoder. Even with high quality headphones, -V 2 will give you good quality. It is the setting used in listening tests as the high ancor. This means that, during blind listening tests, people have an extremely difficult time hearing the difference between it and the source CD. Additionally, audio quality slowly increases if you choose a higher setting (-V 0) while file size drastically increases. -V 2 is really the sweet spot for Lame as a 3 minute song will come out to around 4.6MB while a 5 minute song will take up 7MB (it all depends on music complexity though).

The mpeg-4 AAC format is a good format, it will produce high quality music even at the 128kbps VBR bitrate. The only problem with mpeg-4 AAC is that there aren't that many devices out there that support it. PDA's, the PSP (and some Sony DAP's), the iPod, and some car CD decks support it. This may sound like a lot but it really pales in comparison to mp3 support.

Your absolute best bet would be to purchase an additional hard drive and rip your entire collection to a lossless format (Apple lossless will work just fine). That way, when a new lossy/lossless format comes out, you can simply convert those files instead of having to re-rip your CD collection.

Mirage2k

06-18-2006, 02:18 PM

If using the iTunes-LAME plug-in or compiling the latest build of LAME seems too complicated, there is also a good free ripping program for Mac OS X that uses LAME v3.97b2 for its MP3 ripper. It's called Max: http://sbooth.org/Max/ It's "transparent" setting is the same as "V 2 --vbr-new"

mr2005

06-29-2006, 11:47 PM

but aac is supposedly better
-Carmel

is acc really better?

kornchild2002

06-30-2006, 07:17 AM

is acc really better?

In terms of audio quality, no. The iTunes AAC format is better than the Helix mp3 encoder (included with Real Player) and the Fraunhofer mp3 encoder (included with MusicMatch, Windows Media Player, iTunes, the free version of WinAmp, etc.). A 128kbps VBR iTunes AAC easily has the quality of a 160kbps VBR iTunes mp3. However, the iTunes AAC format and Lame mp3 encoder are tied in terms of quality, one is not better than the other.

How can a format decades old compete with a new format? The developers of the Lame mp3 encoder keep making changes and keep improving upon the format. They have surpased the normal quality levels of the mp3 format and keep pushing it beyond its limits. The Lame mp3 format has been around for quite some time now, I think the first version was released in 1994. The iTunes AAC format shows the most room for improvement because developers are barely tapping into the mpeg-4 AAC format and the developers for the Lame mp3 encoder will one day be at the mercy of the mp3 format itself.

Right now, the Lame mp3 encoder and iTunes AAC encoder have the same quality.

shabbs

07-08-2006, 04:23 PM

=The Lame mp3 format has been around for quite some time now, I think the first version was released in 1994.
Lame was introduced in 1998 by Mike Cheng. Check out this link for a "history of LAME":

http://arstechnica.com/guides/tweaks/encoding.ars/2

Lame 4.0 is under development by Takehiro Tominaga. You can get the LAME 4.0 Alpha's over at RareWares now (bottom of the page):

http://www.rarewares.org/mp3.html

From what I hear, it's WICKED fast.

Cheers.

Mr. Salty

07-10-2006, 02:36 AM

Right now, the Lame mp3 encoder and iTunes AAC encoder have the same quality.
There are those of us who would disagree with that. After conducting numerous listening tests of my own, I came to the conclusion that I hate the sound quality of MP3s when compared to AAC.

The OP may want to do similar listening tests. It doesn't take much effort to encode a handful of songs that you know well in both formats. Do that and spend some time listening to them over the course of a few days. It can even be fun.

And, it's the only real way to know what's best for you. I have good quality earbuds. You might not be able to hear a difference on yours. Or, you might simply like the way MP3s sound (shudder). But the only way to know is to compare for yourself.

mnhnhyouh

07-10-2006, 04:58 AM

kornchild2002

07-10-2006, 06:55 AM

There are those of us who would disagree with that. After conducting numerous listening tests of my own, I came to the conclusion that I hate the sound quality of MP3s when compared to AAC.

The OP may want to do similar listening tests. It doesn't take much effort to encode a handful of songs that you know well in both formats. Do that and spend some time listening to them over the course of a few days. It can even be fun.

And, it's the only real way to know what's best for you. I have good quality earbuds. You might not be able to hear a difference on yours. Or, you might simply like the way MP3s sound (shudder). But the only way to know is to compare for yourself.

This statement goes against all listening tests conducted by hydrogen audio at the 128kbps bitrate. They conducted a test in which numerous people participated in and ranked the Lame mp3 encoder as having the same quality as the iTunes AAC encoder. Additionally, a very profound user at hydrogenaudio (guruboolez) showed that the Lame mp3 encoder statistically has the same quality as the iTunes AAC encoder.

Just remember that the encoder built into iTunes is totally different from the Lame mp3 encoder. Additionally, it has been PROVEN that the Lame mp3 encoder begins to achieve CD transparency at around the 160kbps VBR bitrate.

So making blatent comments like "I hate the sound quality of mp3s when compared to AAC" is just wrong especially when it has been proven otherwise. You are welcome to post your blind ABX test scores and you can even go to hydrogenaudio if you are finding errors in the Lame mp3 encoder that are producing terrible quality files for you.

I don't mean to "attack" in this post but no one can ever really talk about audio quality until they have conducted a blind ABX test.

Mr. Salty

07-11-2006, 03:21 AM

So making blatent comments like "I hate the sound quality of mp3s when compared to AAC" is just wrong especially when it has been proven otherwise.
It is never blatantly wrong to voice a personal opinion. I did not say that AAC is better. I said that I, personally, do not like the sound of MP3 and prefer AAC. And it isn't possible to "prove" something as subjective as audio quality.

It is, however, wrong to make a blanket statement that one format is better than another, given the nature of the subject matter. The type of music, the earphones, the listening device, and personal preference all affect the outcome.

The only real way to know what is best for you is to conduct your own listening tests. I don't give a rats ### what some online audio prophet named guruboolez prefers, any more than you should care what I prefer. It's easy enough to do your own tests, then make your own informed decision. Anyone who makes a decision based only on the opinion of someone they've never met is a fool. Sure, weigh the advice, but make you own judgment.

This statement goes against all listening tests conducted by hydrogen audio at the 128kbps bitrate.
What led you to believe I was encoding at 128 kbps?

They conducted a test in which numerous people participated in and ranked the Lame mp3 encoder as having the same quality as the iTunes AAC encoder. Additionally, a very profound user at hydrogenaudio (guruboolez) showed that the Lame mp3 encoder statistically has the same quality as the iTunes AAC encoder.

And if numerous people over at hydrogenaudio were the ones I was encoding my music for, maybe I'd switch to MP3. But they aren't. All I care about is what sounds good to me.

So, at the very least by your own statements, I'm getting the same sound quality as a LAME-encoded MP3, but with smaller file sizes and the ripping/encoding process is faster and requires fewer steps.

And yes, my listening tests were blind, thanks to the help of a friend.

So, what does this boil down to for the OP? Simple: listen to both and make up your own mind. It won't cost you anything.

mnhnhyouh

07-11-2006, 04:02 AM

Additionally, it has been PROVEN that the Lame mp3 encoder begins to achieve CD transparency at around the 160kbps VBR bitrate.

Sorry to go OT, but here goes.

It is not possible, outside of maths, to prove anything to be true. While it is easy to prove something false by showing an exception, it is not possible to test all cases over all time, so we cant prove something true. There is a huge body of work behind this statement, and it is what science is based on, falsificationism.

Further, the tests between AAC and mp3 demonstrated no statistically significant difference between AAC and mp3, I have never heard any discussion of the statistical power of the test.

What does this mean?

Well if I compare, in a statistical test, the heights of two males, 175 and 180 cm, and two females 155 and 145 cm, I will find no difference. This is because replication is low, which results in low power.

So while there the test found no difference, until power is calculated we have no idea of how often the test would find no difference, even if there is one. Calculating power gets at your "proven" statement. If you have high power, then you can say how confident you are that you could detect a difference.

And even if there is no meaningful difference you can still find a significant difference.

I once analysed the records of 10,000 babies. I compared the ages of fathers of girls with the ages of fathers of boys. There was a highly significant difference, with p< 0.0001. Fathers of boys were older than fathers of girls. This would lead you to be able to claim that males produce more boys in later life than girls.

However the average age of fathers of boys was 9 days older than the average age of fathers of girls. Not a meaningful difference.

While some would take these arguments as indicating that statistics are useless, and "proving" that there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics", I would use them as a tale of caution for the following....

1) make sure the tests are well done, (which they are at HA)

2) make sure you dont claim things are proven, (which you cant)

3) make sure that if you find no difference, that there are enough reps so you can be confident that your not finding a difference might mean something (and without this for the HA tests we know little).

h

kornchild2002

07-11-2006, 07:07 AM

1. Yes, I was wrong with saying "proven" numerous times, I was trying to get my point across.

2. I was stating that the Lame mp3 encoder has the same audio quality as the iTunes AAC encoder. This test was conducted at the 128kbps VBR bitrate but, if the encoders are identical at the 128kbps VBR bitrate, then it is infered that they are identical at larger bitrates.

3. Personal preferences are 100% fine, just make sure that a statement saying that iTunes AAC has better quality than mp3 (thus you must concider Lame mp3) is not stated. The iTunes AAC format is a high quality audio format built right into iTunes and has easy integration with the iPod. It may be a better overall solution for people who don't want to fuss with foobar2000 or EAC and Lame. However, the quality of the two formats does NOT depend on personal preferences. The audio quality is somewhat objective in that everyone's ears are different but listening tests have been conducted with a large audience.

4. Seriously, someone like guruboolez should not be negatively talked about especially since they have contributed so much to the hydrogenaudio world and the subjective testing of the Lame mp3 encoder and other formats. If someone takes the time out of their day to do these extensive tests, then their work gets more than a rats ### award.

5. Thanks for the corrections, didn't mean to "blow up," personal preferences are fine in dealing with convinience but numerous tests have shown that the two formats have equal quality.

shabbs

07-11-2006, 08:36 AM

It is not possible, outside of maths, to prove anything to be true.
I think I can easily prove that if I punch you in the face, you will feel pain. Will you not? ;)

mnhnhyouh

07-11-2006, 04:49 PM

Not with sufficient pain killers.....

Or if I have one of three genetic conditions that prevent me from feeling pain....

These are trivial examples of why things cannont be proven true.

h

shabbs

07-11-2006, 04:59 PM

These are trivial examples of why things cannont be proven true.
But if you feel the pain, the proof stands. You are citing examples where you don't feel the pain.

mnhnhyouh

07-11-2006, 05:14 PM

If I feel pain, then I did so on that occasion, this does not prove the statement true.

You said that if you punch me in the face I will feel pain..... I demonstrated that there are conditions where that statement is not true.

Therefore that is not a true statement.

A forum like this is not the place to give you a course of logic and the philosophy of science. Nor am I qualified to do so.

If you do want to understand this, there are a couple of good wiki articles, starting here....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsificationism

h

shabbs

07-11-2006, 05:20 PM

Yeah - this got way OT fast. I see what you are saying. The classic white swan example easily demonstrates that.

Mr. Salty

07-11-2006, 06:31 PM

3. Personal preferences are 100% fine, just make sure that a statement saying that iTunes AAC has better quality than mp3 (thus you must concider Lame mp3) is not stated.
I made no such statement. To quote my previous post: "I came to the conclusion that I hate the sound quality of MP3s when compared to AAC."

However, the quality of the two formats does NOT depend on personal preferences. The audio quality is somewhat objective in that everyone's ears are different but listening tests have been conducted with a large audience.
If sound quality didn't depend somewhat on personal preference, there wouldn't be a need for a variety of headphones, earbuds, loudspeakers, audio codecs, listening devices, etc.

shabbs

07-11-2006, 07:05 PM

To quote my previous post: "I came to the conclusion that I hate the sound quality of MP3s when compared to AAC."
What is it that you hate about it? I'm curious.

Mr. Salty

07-11-2006, 10:45 PM

kornchild2002

07-12-2006, 07:14 AM

I'm at work, so I'll keep this brief, but basically MP3s seemed to come up short on "oompf," for lack of a better word. They just seem flat, and the high end is a little lifeless. (And although this doesn't come from my listening tests, I will say some AAC tracks can be a little too bright at times, although these seem to be tracks I encoded a long time on much older versions of iTunes.) The clarity of LAME-encoded MP3s is perfectly fine, however.

So you are talking about iTunes encoded mp3's vs iTunes AAC files?

That is the whole god dang point I am trying to get across. Yes, the iTunes AAC encoder does have higher quality than the iTunes mp3 encoder. Hydrogenaudio has shown this along with other tests conducted outside of HA. I have done numerous tests on my own and have proven this to myself as well.

Just remember that, when talking about mp3, there are many different encoders out there just like there are many different AAC encoders out there. So it is OK for you to state that YOU find AAC to suite your needs more because YOU find that AAC has higher quality than mp3. Now, instead of saying straight mp3 you should say iTunes mp3 which shows that you are talking about iTunes encoded mp3's.

That way, someone like me won't come along and say that you are wrong because past tests show that the LAME mp3 encoder is better. Distiguish between encoders being tested.

Additionally, there are a variety of different audio hardware accessories. This is given. Some devices may output at higher quality while others won't. This also depends on the encoder being used. On some equipment, a 128kbps iTunes AAC sounds CD quality. On other equipment, like my speakers, 128kbps iTunes AAC sounds OK. I guess the point I am trying to get across is that some people may perceive different audio encoders performing differently, this is given. That is why listening tests are conducted with large audiences who vary in listening degrees. That way, one can show that a certain audio encoder has higher quality than another audio encoder at a certain bitrate.

Mr. Salty

07-12-2006, 08:33 PM

So you are talking about iTunes encoded mp3's vs iTunes AAC files?
No, I'm talking about MP3s ripped with EAC and encoded with LAME, and AAC tracks encoded with iTunes.

So it is OK for you to state that YOU find AAC to suite your needs more because YOU find that AAC has higher quality than mp3.
Thank you for your permission.

Now, instead of saying straight mp3 you should say iTunes mp3 which shows that you are talking about iTunes encoded mp3's.
Well, since the whole discussion has been about LAME-encoded MP3s, I thought that was understood. But I should have made that clearer: I prefer the sound of iTunes-encoded AAC tracks to LAME-encoded MP3s.

That is why listening tests are conducted with large audiences who vary in listening degrees. That way, one can show that a certain audio encoder has higher quality than another audio encoder at a certain bitrate.
And most consumers rate Pizza Hut as the best pizza in the country. I don't care. All I care about is that Pizza Hut doesn't taste that great to me. Since I'm the one eating it, that's all that matters to me.

kornchild2002

07-13-2006, 07:32 AM

OK, I am just going to drop it because this thread is going way off topic.

I don't really care what you think about the Lame mp3 encoder, I am still going to recomend it to everyone over the iTunes AAC encoder because listening tests have shown that both encoders/formats have the same audio quality. If you want to go against 3-4 listening tests then go ahead. As long as your music sound good to you then use it. I won't be listening to your music on a daily basis just like you won't be listening to mine. Still, it is kinda strange to go against the grain like this. It is like 1 million people are pointing up the sky and saying it is blue while there is one person saying it is green. Many tests have shown the sky to be blue but that one person keeps coming up and saying it is green without showing their testing methedology, the equipment they are using to analyse the color of the sky, or the envieronments they are in when looking at the sky.

Eh, to each their own. Use whatever makes you happy.

wyneken

07-14-2006, 09:34 AM

I don't get where this hostility is coming from, Mr. Salty. Kornchild was just trying to be helpful, and took the time to provide a lot of information that most people aren't aware of.

Kupo

07-14-2006, 10:22 PM

MP3, mainly because of its universal compatibility.

Mr. Salty

07-14-2006, 11:20 PM

I don't get where this hostility is coming from, Mr. Salty. Kornchild was just trying to be helpful, and took the time to provide a lot of information that most people aren't aware of.
No hostility was intended, but when I'm told that voicing my opinion is wrong, yeah, I'll vehemently disagree.

mnhnhyouh

07-14-2006, 11:46 PM

Mr. Salty, can you describe your blind test listening setup, and your results?

h

Mr. Salty

07-15-2006, 05:48 AM

I think I'm pretty much done with this thread. I have no interest in trying to remember all the details of an informal test I did a year ago. And it's probably prudent to bow out now before things really do turn hostile.

But my advice to the OP remains the same: Debate remains over which is the best audio format (and I myself look forward to delving into the possibilities of Ogg Vorbis once Rockbox becomes a little more stable). The best advice anyone can give you is to run your own tests and choose which is right for you. Don't let anyone bully you into making a decision that might not be right for you.