MOTUnation.com

Would someone please rank the following formats in order of audio excellence? My knowledge of all this tech-head stuff is decidedly thin on the ground. Life was so much simpler when it was good old AIFF and wav, but these days.... sheesh! I guess I'm a bit confused because in Audio Hijack, both Apple Lossless and AAC produce m4a files, but with different file sizes. From memory, an Apple Lossless m4a file is quite a bit bigger than an AAC m4a file (although they share the same suffix). I'd like to understand why.

AIFF
Apple Lossless
AAC
m4a
mp3 at 320 Kbps

Thanks,

Geoff

1) aiff

2) Apple lossless is half the size of a 16bit/44.1kHz file and sounds pretty good. My iPod favorite.

3) http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/aac/

I'm not sure in the bottom three or how acc and lame compare, but your list might be in the proper order.

AAC is essentially MP4 (.m4a), n'est-ce pas?

Any losslessly compressed audio file will sound identical to the uncompressed file from which it was generated. Assuming no bugs exist in the lossless codec, a file can be compressed and uncompressed again resulting in a bit perfect replica of the original. Since my phone only plays MP3s, I've not used the other lossy formats and can't comment on their relative quality.

mesaken wrote:1) aiff

2) Apple lossless is half the size of a 16bit/44.1kHz file and sounds pretty good. My iPod favorite.

3) http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/aac/

I'm not sure in the bottom three or how acc and lame compare, but your list might be in the proper order.

Thanks for that. The Apple link info is very interesting.

Cheers,

Geoff

What they said.

Lossless is just that, lossless, so it should sound the same. I didn't know they used m4a as a suffix, that's weird. MP3, AAC, OGG, etc, are lossy formats, they get rid of information that you can never get back when they are encoded, hence they are smaller.

AAC is m4a, this is what you get when you make your own, m4p is protected, like when you buy them from the iTunes store.

mp3 at 320 is specific, like AIFF at 24/96. I prefer AAC over MP3 at the same sample rate, even LAME encoded MP3's. At 320 everything is going to sound good though. I usually make AAC's at 192 for my own purposes.

bb

Thanks everyone for your input. This forum's all about sharing information and expertise, and you guys have delivered in spades. I now feel a lot more confident about tackling an upcoming project.

Cheers,

Geoff

And don't forget to Rip them with LAME.

There is NO better codec out there, period.

chamelion wrote:... This forum's all about sharing information and expertise, and you guys have delivered in spades.

Sorry I can't deliver here Geoff.
I have no garden tools to speak of.

chamelion wrote:Would someone please rank the following formats in order of audio excellence?

<snip>

AIFF
Apple Lossless
AAC
m4a
mp3 at 320 Kbps

m4a is an extension that Apple uses for MP4 files. Since MP4 is a container format and can hold different codecs (like QuickTime) , it's not something that can be ranked against the others in & of itself.

So after removing m4a, the order would be:
1.) AIFF (and other PCM formats like SDII or WAVE) & Apple Lossless
2.) AAC
3.) MP3

At higher bit rates like 256 or 320 kbps both MP3 and AAC are hard to tell aparat from each other and from the original 16/44.1 PCM source (certainly so when listening to an iPod with earbuds on the subway), but at lower bit rates I think AAC sounds better. AAC produces a larger file size than MP3 at the same bit rate (128 kbps AAC file is larger than 128 kbps MP3 file), but you can usually use a lower bit rate with AAC and get the same quality. In my own extremely unscientific and subjective tests a few years back it seemed to me that 192 kbps MP3 is comparable to 128 kbps AAC, so the file sizes end up being comparable in the end for roughly the same quality.

For whatever it's worth, I usually rip my own CDs at 256 kbps MP3 or 256 kbps AAC, primarily for use with both decent studio headphones and iPod earbuds. For internet delivery, 128 kbps MP3 is about the bottom of the barrel for what audio-conscious folks will listen to; I prefer 160 or 192 if file size limitations & whatnot for the particular scenario permit it.

.

Ok. Dumb MP3 question:

Why does DP give you less options on selecting the number of kbps when bouncing to an MP3 according to VBR or CBR? VBR doesn't go as high... why?

So, is the general conscensus is to use CBR whenever possible? I hope so... that's the way I do it. I never use VBR.

Comments?

Thanks!

Usually the rate listed for VBR is the minimum, since it's variable there is no actual "rate", just an average that will vary with each piece.

VBR sounds better at a similar file size, and probably just better overall. It uses a lot of bits for the complicated parts and fewer for the easy ones. CBR just uses the same amount no matter what's going on. If you ever saw DVD's when they first came out they were horrible. I didn't buy one for years even though I was peripherally in the business. They were using CBR. Now they mostly use VBR.

Some older and cheaper devices will not play VBR's, but I don't think this is that common. It uses slightly more processing power to play VBR's.

I never use CBR.

I'm just spouting this off the top of my head, so someone correct me if my facts are wrong.

bb

It's always fun to watch how long it takes for a dissenting view to appear .

I predict this topic will now go on for pages and pages, as we try to resolve whether to use CBR or VBR .

mhschmieder wrote:It's always fun to watch how long it takes for a dissenting view to appear .

I predict this topic will now go on for pages and pages, as we try to resolve whether to use CBR or VBR .

What do YOU use?

I always thought CBR was better because is set-and-forget (for the encoding), where as VBR is changing always based on the music, correct?
So why make matters more complicated and artifact-prone?

So as long as a high rate is used and set, all's good... at least I thought...

What do YOU use?

a narrow, small spade... it's easier to dig up the weeds... but I bent it

Regards, Rob