Pushkin Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 I apologise if this had already been discussed, as both terms are too short to begin a keyword search of the forum. Like I'm sure the rest of you audiophiles out there agree, there is definitely a difference significant enough between mp3 and the CD wav format for me to care about. Now that I finally have an ipod (I know, hell is unavoidable now, I still love my Discman though) I'm curious to know if any of you prefer either of the formats in the topic over the other and why? If you hate them both with a passion, feel free to mention that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bahamut Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Mp3 has been just fine for me for my uses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herograw Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 mp3 V0 or V2 should be sufficient. aac, on the other hand, is superfluous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I-n-j-i-n Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 It's not a matter of being sufficient or not... Why does that arise in every new technology threads? I use the old telephone too, but it's not the point. I use the old DVDs but that's not indicative of the quality of newer disc formats, etc etc. Not the point. The AAC is supposedly a superior format and I'd agree from experience though it's usually the Apple files that are on it though plenty of recent pirated soundtracks are on it now. For the filesize, as in pound-for-pound, AAC is typically better. In the end, AAC files are both smaller and sound better even in compression than the typical MP3 files. That's the basic conclusion from audiophiles anyway. And again, I agree due to my personal experience with them. As for iPod compatibility, it should work since it's something supported by Apple itself but I wouldn't know since I try to shy away from the break-prone iPods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bahamut Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 For me, mp3 has proven to be more than sufficient in all things considered with many of these heralded formats not having 1) the nearly ubiquitous compatibility of mp3 with various devices and/or 2) software compatibility. Those really are the killers for me, and the annoyance of supposed audiophiles who want to huff and puff these formats down people's throats for the sake of audio quality over convenience. I think the next acceptable jump to most is when a lossless format becomes the standard format for all devices, which should happen in the next 2 decades (at least I hope). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herograw Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 next 2 decades (at least I hope). roooooooooooofl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I-n-j-i-n Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 For me, mp3 has proven to be more than sufficient in all things considered with many of these heralded formats not having 1) the nearly ubiquitous compatibility of mp3 with various devices and/or 2) software compatibility. Those really are the killers for me, and the annoyance of supposed audiophiles who want to huff and puff these formats down people's throats for the sake of audio quality over convenience. iPod and iTunes support AAC. How is that not ubiquitous? And my Winamp plays AAC no problem. I don't even know if I downloaded any AAC applications for it. Either it was seamless or close to it. AAC is already a completed product unlike something like FLAC where you have to convert it and it's a pain in the ass for otherwise unacquainted users. AAC never had that problem, really. I really don't see how convenience has anything to do with it since just about all the programs that handle MP3s already has built in AAC support now such as Winamp and Nero. When the 3rd parties are making it a must to support the new file types, I think that is a sign. I think the next acceptable jump to most is when a lossless format becomes the standard format for all devices, which should happen in the next 2 decades (at least I hope). It's happening now so why wait 20 years when everything is smoothed out? I don't think technology ever worked that way. It always starts as a rough entrance then it steamrolls down. VHS was like that, DVD was like that, HDTV was like that, HD disc formats is in that stage now, etc. Especially on the software compression front, I think the progression is going to be seamless. I don't think most MP3 users will have to worry since the hardware companies are always trying to keep up with the highest end in terms of being able to read different file compression types. So it's basically a hands off upgrade in the coming years. IE- All the MP3 players of the future will most likely play both MP3 and AAC files. This isn't a competition. Also, you say this is about audiophiles cramming it down users' throats but I disagree. I think any run of the mill iPod/MP3 player owners realize that the compression is just problematic and if you're putting in CD quality music in the player, it balloons up in size. It's just common sense. And now there is an alternative for that demand. I think it's just a natural progression of technology. Also, XviD is slowly but surely being replaced by H264 as well on the video front. Actually, the H264 is in the exact same situation as AAC. Other than the minor installation, it's basically the same type of file but in much better compression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bahamut Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Problem is, plenty of other formats have had support, but never been able to get over that hump since the quality of 192 kbps mp3s are fine to most, and for most even less works. In addition, you have a lot of companies that keep fighting for their own choice of formats to go through since they each want their choice to succeed, most notably with portable music players. To even take this Apple format for an example, you have it supported on iPods, but what about other portable music players? Or ogg? These formats don't enjoy ubiquitous support, and probably never will because of the thorny issue of licensing issues that could arise if one companies' technology wins out over the currently fairly neutral mp3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgeCrusher Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 I don't have a problem with newer formats, and the size. I just hate seeing people try to force it like they are selling their lives and usually sound like dicks ins the process. When it becomes a standard, Ill use it. And if its the only version of something I can find, Ill use it. But until then, mp3 is fine for my ears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pezman Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 To even take this Apple format for an example, you have it supported on iPods, but what about other portable music players? Now that I finally have an ipod Let's remember to keep this in context Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuckles Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 AAC is all well and good, but I too am still waiting for a good FLAC to become widely popular. Again, like other, I find MP3 tolerable to the point where it's not worth converting my music library to AAC just for a marginal difference. I have used two non-ipod MP3 players, and I much prefer being able to trim songs (like live tracks I want the clapping and talking out of) without having to convert them. (Although Audacity might support AAC...but whatever.) Bottom line, FLAC is a big enough jump to make me turn my head, but it's not supported quite enough yet for me to realistically sacrifice the convenience of MP3. AAC is fine, but still limited enough to keep me from selling out to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pezman Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Monkey's Audio is a better lossless encoder (ie smaller file) than FLAC. I say we look into that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 I have a mixture of mp3's and aac's in my collection. Both are fine with me... I don't really care too much to convert my collection to all mp3's or aac's. If the songs sound good and have a listenable bitrate I will be ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy In Rubber Suit Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 At first I used AAC but then I couldn't use it when I burned the songs onto a CD to be used as an MP3 CD and when I tried to share some songs not everyone could open them. So I switched back to MP3 though I use a higher bitrate and such for encoding to retain the quality. It makes the file size a bit big though I don't mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moguta Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 To answer the original poster: It really depends on what you'll be doing with your music. Are you just going to use those encoded files entirely for yourself? In that case, you should be pretty safe going with AAC for higher quality or lower filesize. Do you plan on sharing your encoded music with friends and such? Then MP3 would probably be your best bet still, because it is the most compatible and can sound quite good even if it requires some more bits than AAC. (And it's not like the "next generation pro audio codec" of AAC bothered to fix the one standout drawback of MP3, where it plays gaps of short silence between otherwise-continuous files. No, to simply be gapless, you'd need a free codec like Ogg Vorbis or Musepack, LOL.) AAC is already a completed product unlike something like FLAC where you have to convert it and it's a pain in the ass for otherwise unacquainted users. Are you saying that a format is not "complete" until it's automatically supported by every audio player? In that case, I can only really see MP3 being a complete product. There are plenty of non-iPod portable players which do not work with AAC files. Also, you may find it interesting that the latest versions of WinAmp have FLAC support built-in. Monkey's Audio is a better lossless encoder (ie smaller file) than FLAC. I say we look into that. A smaller filesize is not everything. I used to use APE before switching over to FLAC. But Monkey's Audio will never have much portable support because it takes about 4x the computing power to decode compared to FLAC. On the other hand, FLAC itself already has several hardware devices under its belt, supports surround sound, has its own error checking, supports ReplayGain tags, and is still actively developed, all of which APE unfortunately lacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Damned Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 EDIT: Note to self. Remember which thread you're posting in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moguta Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 >.> Dude, this thread isn't about what format OCR encodes its music in. The guy asked us what format (MP3 or AAC) we preferred and why, since he got his first iPod, and can now play AACs. And things kinda branched out a little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollgagh Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 ... Nice thread reading Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Damned Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 It's Saturday and I helped someone move. I don't NEED TO READ THE THREAD! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollgagh Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 It's Saturday and I helped someone move. I don't NEED TO READ THE THREAD! In that case, you don't need to be posting on the internet, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramaniscence Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 I'm just waiting for a portable media player that can support codecs on the fly via updates or plug-ins. I mean...we have the hardware, it's just a matter of someone putting substantial financial support behind the software. rockbox does it pretty good right now...but the battery life falls super short and the library shorting needs all kinds of work -__- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Damned Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 In that case, you don't need to be posting on the internet, either. Uh... that is... NO U! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I-n-j-i-n Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 Are you saying that a format is not "complete" until it's automatically supported by every audio player? In that case, I can only really see MP3 being a complete product. There are plenty of non-iPod portable players which do not work with AAC files. iPods account for the lion's share of MP3 players out there, and most MP3 players will have to keep up with iTunes in order to compete in the market and there's plenty (though not all) 3rd party MP3 players that support it. I'd say that constitutes it as a complete product unlike something like FLAC which is at least a generation or two away as far as hardware is concerned. The next direct step as I see it is AAC. It's already out there, it's being distributed (again, pirated music comes in AAC much more than it ever has), and the hardware for the most part, supports it. I really don't understand the argument that AAC isn't being supported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.