Posted by fred-bloggs on 11/16/55 11:36

Chris Ridd <chrisridd@mac.com> wrote in
news:BFE17FCB.1409E5%chrisridd@mac.com:

> 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>

Who knows where development will go? Certainly Lame has achieved close to
lossless compression in mp3. But at the moment AAC offers no real benefit
to users of mp3 players.

>
> 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.
>

I think you are wrong.

--
fred

[Back to original message]