Posted by Chris Ridd on 11/16/71 11:36

On 4/1/06 1:22, in article
43bbcc0f$0$67006$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net, "fred-bloggs"
<fred-bloggs@hahahotmail.com> wrote:

> Verne Arase <VerneA@pobox.com> wrote in
> news:0001HW.BFE07C1D0012DDF6F0335550@news.giganews.com:
>
>> Actually, in order to get the quality of a 128 kpbs AAC, you need to
>> code your mp3s at about 192 kbps.
>>
>
> Is this your own opinion? or that of Apple, Nero, Fraunhofer or some
> other financially interested party?
>
> In a set of public double-blind listening tests in 2004, the Lame 3.96
> mp3 encoder was rated *equal* to Itunes AAC 4.2 at 128 kbps CBR.
> http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html

OTOH I just found a quote from a LAME developer who considered that LAME has
reached the upper possible limits of MP3 quality, while Apple is near the
bottom of the possible limits of AAC quality - so AAC can only improve.

<http://new.woxy.com/boards/archive/index.php/t-15864.html>

Have you got any links to more recent listening tests?

> However Lame's greatest strength is it's standard preset VBR mode which
> gives excellent quality at a bit-rate around 225 kbps, Apple only
> introduced AAC with VBR encoding with Itunes 5 in 2005.
>
> Methinks Apple's AAC "improved quality" claim is just eyewash to tie
> naive users into Itunes,Ipod and DRM.

You're confusing the AAC that they sell on the iTMS with the AAC produced by
iTunes. AFAIK they don't use the same encoder, and the iTMS encodes from
sources which are better than the CD.

Cheers,

Chris

[Back to original message]