AAC for ipods ? anyone ?
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Rowland McDonnell on 11 Jan 2010 20:31 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: [snorp] > You constructed your remark and your tatic Tacit. Oh dear. [snoip] Rowladn. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 11 Jan 2010 20:41 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > Howard.not(a)home.com (Howard) wrote: > > >I have been looking at a change to AAC for quality purposes... > > > >Anyone already moved over to AAC for use on their iPod or in the home or > >car ? What do you think ? > > If both are well encoded, AAC sounds a bit better than MP3 at the same > bit rate. But if you're listening to high bitrate of either or through > little earphones or a car stereo while moving, it really won't make > any difference at all. My wife, who likes her little headphones, totally disagrees with you on this point and I've not asked her, she told me a long time ago what her experiences were like listening on headphones. > Even over a competent stereo system at home, once you get over 160kbit > AAC/192kbit MP3 (again, well encoded), few people could double-blind > tell which is in use - against each other or against source CD. I've spotted the difference between lossy and lossless music at that data rate spontaneously - double-blind testing all right. So has my wife - we have both noticed the lossiness of some recordings spontaneously, without being aware that lossy was being played. This happens through iTunes use - most of what I want to listen to is lossless and a good thing too. Sometimes there'll be a lossy version on the playlist and we tend to notice when such a track gets played. 192 kbit/s mp3 encoded by LAME is /at least/ as good as 192 kbit/s AAC encoded by iTunes. > (and no, I'm not interested in anecdotes or bluster otherwise. > Experimental results only, thanks). Experimental results are all of them anecdotes. So what is it that you're after? Do *YOU* have any experimental results to back up your so far evidence-free claims based seemingly purely on bluster and assertion? Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Steve Firth on 12 Jan 2010 03:28 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > You constructed your remark and your tatic assumptions about me very > carefully to cause me social harm in this forum <snort> What social harm? You do that all by yourself.
From: Woody on 12 Jan 2010 06:54 Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> wrote: > > > It seems to be embedded into the genes of Manchester live music > > organisers that 5% THD is optimum. > > I don't understand what this means. I tried reading the wiki on Total > Harmonic Distortion, but I guess I'm getting a bit fick in my old age > cos I didn't really understand the guts of it. > > Is 5% a good thing because it's not very much, and it used to be 10%? > Is 5% a bad thing because it's way too much and it should be .001%? > It should be as low as possible. In the house, on your stereo, 1% THD would be awful. However, at some kind of live venue, it wouldn't be so bad. Beyond that, it would all be bad! -- Woody
From: Elliott Roper on 12 Jan 2010 08:16
In article <1jc6o1h.1swzyzgk4u5zkN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> wrote: > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Yeah, now try LAME. > > OK. I did > > Excellent, dude! Now let's have some interesting data. <snip> > > > I watched all that expensive kit fail to track the cymbals over the > > tympani, (same passage as mentioned below) and packed it all away, > > laughing hollowly at the "analogue has more musicality" ratbags for > > ever more. > > Huh? I dunno what that's supposed to mean, but: You shoulda seen the vinyl. The grooves were more than 1mm apart where the tympani were being abused. The cartridge abandoned all pretence of following the high hats at the same time and machined all the HF off the record. > > What the Luddites often don't get is that CD produces analogue music. > You put analogue in, you get analogue out. So what if the data storage > is digitally encoded? Nah, my whole sensory system is quantized according to that nice Mr Feynman. Seriously, not many of them get Shannon and Nyquist. The excitement is about samples per second and bits per sample where the two jumps between analog and digital happen. Everyone except audio gods like Ian Shepherd ignores the far larger errors elsewhere in the reproduction chain. > And what hardly anyone gets is that vinyl is a digital data storage > system. There is nothing continuous about a lump of vinyl - it's made > up of atoms and molecules which determine the minimum possible data > storage unit, sortathing. > > (admittedly, that limit is never remotely approached because of all the > other limits of the technology) I'm glad you added that bit. I was getting worried for you. > <shrug> Things are not as they are usually said to me, I find. > > > AAC at 128 (my old iTunes copy from 2006) > > AAC at 160 ( a fresh one from CD using iTunes 9.0.2) > > Apple's iTunes MP3 at 192 (likewise) > > LAME iTunes at --alt-preset standard ( MP3 198VBR) > > > > ...and the winning codec is:- > > > > <breathless Strictly-esque pause> > > > > AAC at 160 > > Hmm! Righto. Hmm. Okay. > > Question: was that constant bitrate or variable bitrate? And why not > use 192 kbit/s as with the LAME mp3? VBR Err, way back in the thread, I was arguing that 160 AAC was indistinguishable to my flannel ears from 192 mp3. You *do* want me to be consistent? > > It was hard to separate Apple's and LAME's mp3. Both fell a little > > lifeless in a drum and cymbal passage about 14 minutes in. AAC did too, > > but not nearly as much. All three were missing a little sweetness and > > punch in the opening bars as the cellos and basses fade and the first > > violins kick in. > > Uhuh. > > > Apple's 2006 model 128 mp3 was way behind as expected. > > > > You might want to re-test for yourself using iTunes current mp3 codec. > > It used to be bloody awful, it really did. > > > I think they have fixed it. It was a bit of an ear-opener. I liked the > > LAME a lot too. Honestly, it was all very close between the top 3 and > > the CD. Have a go with the current iTunes mp3 codec. I'd be interested to see what you think. Meanwhile I'll be playing with some of the other quality options on iTunes LAME. I might try the phase reversal games someone mentioned, and also Ian's high pass filter tests. I know, I know, it is your own careful listening that is the final arbiter, but they do (ahem) sound interesting tests. <snip> > > Hello again. I'm back! That is one beautiful piece of music. I forgot > > I was halfway through writing this post. It is so nice to listen to the > > whole thing without mention of BGR bloody Bloomer or broken up by > > luvvie love-ins on the other channel. > > R3 for the luvvie love-ins? BGR bloody Bloomer - Classic FM? yep and yep! -- To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$ PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248 |