Posted by ZnU on 11/16/98 11:36

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
>
> 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.

Uh, except that AAC is an open format, and no DRM is applied to files
you rip yourself.

I suspect Apple's comparison wasn't against Lame, which is probably
among the best (if it's not *the* best) MP3 encoders. Most people
encoding MP3 probably aren't using something that good.

--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

[Back to original message]