- 04-02-2007, 05:24 PM #51
In blind listening tests 192 kb/sec WMA scores higher than 128 kb/sec AAC from itunes. Get over to it.
- 04-02-2007, 05:28 PM #52
- 04-02-2007, 05:30 PM #53
- 04-02-2007, 05:35 PM #54
All of this seems to subvert the fact this only helps to promote/increase album sales on ITunes. The price increase will only affect singles, but entire albums can still be bought DRM free for $9.99. In the long run, this seems like the better business model for Apple.
- 04-03-2007, 05:48 AM #57
I will not upgrade my music, because I am probably not listening to that music any more, and if I was listening to it still I have probably already stripped the DRM or bought and ripped CD. Any future purchases from Itunes will of course be at the higher bitrate and free.
It will interesting to see if if the subscription services change at all to this latest development. I'd hope to see Rhapsody, Napster etc go with DRM-less music for purchase (to own outright) but, as you say, removing the DRM on the rented stuff seems less likely. On the other hand, the competition did just get a whole lot more attractive so they might do something.
- 04-03-2007, 07:34 AM #60
- 04-04-2007, 10:30 AM #61
People, please don't believe what susrur says. If you want to rely on these links, PLEASE read them and understand them, don't take his word as he presents it.
There are so many things wrong with this, I do not know where to start. I guess the first thing I would mention is that at the top of these pages that susur links to is one explanation as to why Apple's AAC encoder did so poorly: It is because they used the encoder in iTunes 6.0 which has a bug that is revealed when they use their selected content - that content being a glockenspiel. This particular sound serves to reveal a technique used in AAC that utilizes Temporal Noise Shaping in addition to Prediction. These very techniques will introduce a clicking/popping sound that is heard in unnatural highpitched sounds such as those of a glockenspiel. Who listens to a glockenspiel? Nobody! They sound awful. That is why this technique was chosen and the fact that they used this in their test speaks greatly.
So to continue with this issue, I would also like to mention that the iTunes encoder found in 7.1 has been upgraded.
In addition, I do not believe that this encoder is the one used for iTunes encoding on the desktop. I will check.
I would also like to mention that content encoded for Apple's iTunes Store does away with wow and flutter as well as jitter because it is professionally done utilizing digital sources (no transfers or by-way-of's that presumably would keep the signal digital but possibly via an exchange of format, thereby introducing wow and flutter or of course jitter); whereas content from every other digital store has varied encoding techniques. There is no slanting or biasing in this fact, it just simply brings an uneasy (feeling) and unreliable aspect to other's encoding methods.
I really don't want to continue this discussion; BUT I will and will return with more evidence.
- 04-04-2007, 10:48 AM #62
- 04-04-2007, 01:15 PM #63
By and large, yes, the higher the bit rate the better, UNLESS you factor in AAC's use of bitrate storage and take into account the low-pass filter at 256kbps and below. Then there are other issues like WMA's characteristic low frequency drop-off, which cannot be made up for regardless of what kind of bitrate you use.
- 04-04-2007, 01:47 PM #64
- 04-04-2007, 10:10 PM #65
- 04-05-2007, 08:52 AM #66
It's silly to connect any sort of mp3 player to that sort of set up, anyway. Why not connect a really nice old 8-track. Oooh, how about setting up a Radio Shack turn table and do a comparison with a VPI or a Goldmund? Seriously, listening to digital at all on that stuff is questionable in it's fidelity. Maybe listening to a Krell, Proceed, Pass, or Meridian - but that sort of set up cries out for a really well set up analog source.
- 04-05-2007, 03:21 PM #67
^ Your assumption that I use an mp3 player as a source for my gear is hardly close to correct and quite a stretch of the imagination.
BTW, there is such a thing as too much analog or an imbalance of analog/digital. The former EAD suits me just fine as my digital source.
- 04-05-2007, 04:25 PM #68
And if a person is after that fluid analog feeling, you can get that with the introduction of tubes or the right equipment. Five or six years ago, I would have agreed with you, analog would have been a better source in some respects but now, digital has it beat all the way around.
- 04-05-2007, 07:10 PM #69
- 04-05-2007, 07:32 PM #70
Based on the listening tests that I have seen here over the years I have come to the following conclusions:
1) At equal bit rates there are often quality differences between different codecs, though usually the differences are small to modest.
2) At unequal bit rates the file with the higher bit rate is almost always the one with the higher quality.
Also, the only guarantee against obsolescence of your chosen codec, is to go lossless.
Worth reading the whole thread. The above basically summarizes my views. For near universal compatibility I prefer mp3 over anything else.
- 04-05-2007, 11:46 PM #71
This is a sample spectograph sweep — original source material:
Below is a spectograph sweep of Microsoft's NEWEST and best level of WMA at its best possible settings for 192kbps:
Compare that to a spectograph of the worst level of older AAC compression (AAC-LC) at 128kbps (plus it is done with the poorest "fast" setting):
So what this is showing is the exact opposite of what you said earlier, that 128 WMA is better than 192 AAC.
You see, in reality, AAC at 128kbps is actually better than WMA at 192kbps.
Do you want to see how much better AAC is compared to WMA when using the same sampling rate?
- 04-06-2007, 04:53 AM #72
a) why should I accept material sourced from you? How do I know your setup is accurate and not biased?
b) Spectrograph's are poor at telling us what subjective sound quality is, as with lossly compression some information gets discarded intentionally.
c) I never said 128 kb/sec WMA is better than 192 kb/sec AAC, thats just your poor reading as usual.
d) You DID say 128 AAC is better than 192 WMA (a pretty stupid thing to say)
e) My links, from an independent website that measures many many codecs, prove you wrong.
Archie, wrong wrong wrong again..... :cry:
- 04-06-2007, 09:21 AM #73
a)This is why I didn't want to get into this with you. I knew there would be things you would not understand and then any readers that might be left at this point (along with myself) would have to deal with your typical irrational statements.
b)Well you are correct in saying that "spectographs are poor at telling us what subjective sound quality is". 'Course this should be obvious.
What they ARE good at are measuring the objective facts.
c) Yes you did. It's the first thing at the top of this page. I quoted you.
d) Yes I did say that 128 kbps AAC is better than 192 kbps WMA and I even crippled AAC as much as I could and picked out THE VERY best performance of WMA revisions with the best possible settings. There is no bias here other than me trying to make WMA shine as much as possible. THIS should be noted.
e)In looking at my first post on this page you will notice a few reasons for accounting in this poor performance of AAC. They even admit to it in your links so I don't know why you insist on using these to back up your insistance that I am wrong, wrong, wrong. Oh, and why are you comparing 198 kbps WMA to 134 kbps AAC? ...oh, maybe I'm just reading it poorly as usual.
For comparison sake, here's AAC at 192 kbps:
here's what Apple will be using in the future, AAC at 256 kbps:
Now you can get your last word in because I'm done discussing this with you.
- 04-06-2007, 10:20 AM #74
- 04-06-2007, 05:03 PM #75