| Guybrush |
02-21-2011 02:27 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbakid2000
(Post 1008251)
I'm not sure of your question...
But iTunes uses AAC which is (and I have no experience with this) supposed to be superior to MP3...ie, it will sound better at lower bitrates than MP3s will at the same bitrate.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by s_k
(Post 1008254)
Ah, I didn't know iTunes used AAC :).
I've always thought OGG sounded pretty good compared to MP3.
|
Both OGG and AAC have been superior to MP3 in the past. From this old guide :
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
(Post 665212)
Question : Is one format better than others?
I've read several tests and will try to summarize the results I've come across. These tests typically pitch different formats against eachother in blind tests, testing the same recordings in the same bitrates, different bitrates and so on. It seems the differences are most noticeable at low bitrates and in general, a music library should not go lower than 128 kbps in quality for any format. Because 128 kbps is quite popular, I've summed here the results from a test testing OGG, WMA and MP3 at that particular bitrate.
- OGG & WMA - 95 %
- MP3 - 80 %
>> source : CD BURNER.CA - Comparison of Digital Audio Formats - MP3, WMA, OGG, WAV & more!
The percentages say how well they approach CD quality for the track they tested. As you can see, both WMA and OGG do better than MP3 at 128 kbps, but at higher bitrates, this can change and differences are often regarded as too miniscule to really notice. Note also that MP3 encoding may have improved since then, making it unsure if this description is accurate today.
|
So that's a pretty big difference at 128. However, I'm sure the Lame guys have improved their mp3 encoder since then and, of course, at higher BRs, the differences are supposed to be miniscule.
I like Ogg because it's open source! And, it reminds me of Nanny Ogg. |
